www.humanities-journal.com

The InternationalJOURNALoftheHUMANITIES

Volume 7, Number 1

Practising Creative Innovation across Cultures

Donna Wright

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES http://www.Humanities-Journal.com First published in 2009 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2009 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2009 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>. ISSN: 1447-9508 Publisher Site: http://www.Humanities-Journal.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

Practising Creative Innovation across CulturesDonna Wright, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia

Abstract: This paper examines the generative capacity of creativity and explores the role of creativearts practice in positioning artefacts as sites or ‘ideas spaces’ which can cultivate innovation towardsthe creation of new meaning across cultures. Using theories of creativity and cultural semiotics, thepaper identifies artefacts that reflect novel meaning-making processes brought about through intercul-tural exchange.

Keywords: Intercultural Communication, Creative Practice, Innovation

THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES the generative capacity of creativity and explores therole of creative arts practice in positioning artefacts as sites or ‘ideas spaces’ whichcan cultivate innovation towards the creation of new meaning across cultures. Thepremise of this discussion is that creative arts practice has the ability to reach across

generations and cultures by offering a distinctive communicative language which connectsus in ways that can give rise to the formation of shared meaning systems. Using theories ofcreativity and cultural semiotics, the article surveys visual artefacts that might reflect novelmeaning-making processes brought about through intercultural exchange.

Continuing correlations emerging from biology, neuroscience, cultural anthropology andcognitive psychology show us that imagination, aesthetic perception, and the allusionaryfunction of visual imagery are central to our everyday life experiences, and that the associ-ative qualities of visual aesthetics particularly, give them interpretive utility which enablesus to dynamically engage with external environments on multiple semiotic levels. Visualimagery also provides a critical link to making sense of the unfamiliar and to extendingmeaning and association to others, therefore providing practical processes to facilitate sharedmeaning. These fundamental attributes of visual media can provide enormous scope forcreative innovation across cultures.

When we engage with the visual we construct narratives which allow opportunities tostretch our expressive range of meaning-making capabilities. Interpretive possibilities arebroadened because conceptual, structural, and sequential decisions are formed both throughan image’s familiarity and its inherent ambiguity. When we view the visual image, signalsare sent out to areas of the brain, where associations are triggered between the image andthe extensive knowledge-store of our internal self and the external world. Because our brainis the basis of both our emotions and our thinking, it provides the associations necessary forperception and rational thought. Visual impressions will engage our cognitive organisation,providing us with the capabilities for seeing, feeling and understanding, giving meaning toexperience (Wright 2007, Sullivan 2005, Pope 2005, Solso 2003, 1996).

Interpretation is formulated through a transactional process where meaning is negotiatedbetween an artefact, which we might here correlate with Uexküll’s carrier of significance,message options located in the artefact, which are constrained by cultural conventionality,

The International Journal of the HumanitiesVolume 7, Number 1, 2009, http://www.Humanities-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9508© Common Ground, Donna Wright, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

and the interpreter, who is the recipient of the artefact. Any individual interpreter of anartefact will bring into the negotiation space cultural subjectivity when constructing a preferredmeaning. The interpreter also comes to the space armed with a range of mediation tools ap-propriated and adapted over time through cultural practices and lived experiences. Thesemediation tools are thereby culturally conditioned, and are fashioned and utilized to fit theindividual’s lifeworld.

A successful function of artistic expression is that it operates as a modality through whichwe can better understand the conscious mind and the familiar, and come to terms with theunfamiliar through an imaginative expression of uncertainty. This creative practice canevolve meaning-systems which has enormous scope for cross-cultural sharing. Solso suggeststhat our brain provides information for us through the activation of memory units that areelements of a larger collection made up of self-knowledge, general knowledge and collectiveknowledge. Cognitive-structuralist, Jean Piaget proposed back in 1926 that we amass inform-ation and knowledge of the world as a result of our continued interaction with it. This complexorganisation of knowledge he termed a schema. We continually construct and collectschemas to form what Bartlett (1932) further termed our schemata. Our individual schematacontinually expand and reshape themselves and these schemas influence how we interpretnew information and recall memory over time. Perceived impressions are associated withand connected to other impressions and then organized into meaningful memory units. Pre-vious experience and learning determines the strength of these connections. Solso definesthis as an aspect of consciousness, in that consciousness ‘allows humans to gain access toknowledge through recall (and recognition) of both personal information and knowledge ofthe world’ (2003 p31).

Cultural semiotics positions a culture’s centre as the controlling mechanism for a society’smyth formation, constructing and organising meaning into an integrated structural model ofthe world. The centre orders life into meaningful stability that is highly valued as the norm-alised condition in which the culture’s society operates. The outside is considered to be dis-orderly and chaotic. Human meaning-systems, referred to as semiocultural spaces, are im-mersed in and constrained by an all encompassing semiosis, which Lotman calls the semio-sphere (1990). The semiosphere is the meaning-making structure that surrounds us. As cul-tural memory evolves as a coded system over generations, encompassing the embedded andtransferable values and beliefs of a culture, it builds into this semiotic system conventionality.A culture’s durability is maintained through this conventionality and is supported by thehuman being’s epigenetic ability to encode cultural memory. The advantage is that thesecultural memory codes form a patterning of interrelated ideas, symbols and behaviours whichare easily shared, learned and transmitted cross-generationally. Bodley notes that becauseof this cross-generational quality of culture it can be characterised as a ‘superorganic entity,existing beyond its individual human carriers’ (1994 p8). He draws on the argument sharedby Kroeber (1987) that ‘each individual is born into and is shaped by a culture that pre-existsand will continue to exist well after the individual dies’.

A hierarchy of meaning-systems is built over time and imbedded through evolution andepigenetics so that each preceding level of meaning is taken for granted and integrated into,and thereby contained within the levels of meaning-systems that follow. This forms the on-togenetic development of the human being and is factored into the evolutionary process. Inthis way culture is shared as implicit and learned human behaviour. Bloom (2000 p42) de-scribes this phenomenon as ‘conformity enforcement’ and has identified it as one of five

10

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

essential elements of a ‘collective learning machine’. As a society becomes more complexso does the conventional value systems that support its continuity. This also allows for infer-ence to take place during interpretation. Eco proposes that every text will describe or presup-pose a possible world that can be inferred by comparing it to the lifeworld of the interpreter.The interpreter will then try to bring a sense of order to its meaning (Zlatev 2003, Lotman1990, Eco 2003).

An individual co-exists in this complex social system and so must possess the capacityto learn the signs contained within the conventional value system and retain this informationin order to participate in the society of which it belongs. This socialisation of the speciesnecessitated the ability of humans to learn, retain, reflect on, interpret, and make use ofconventional signs and sign systems in order to reinforce a group mentality that couldmaintain a communal consciousness, thereby enhancing the chances of both individual andmutual survival. Solso describes this aspect of our collective survival system as the abilityfor humans to be conscious, not only of their own actions but also of another’s consciousnessas well, which he suggests provides us with the capability for empathy. Solso notes that ‘byreason of common neurology and similar social experiences, clan members share a similarknowledge base’ (2003 p33).

The innovative quality of this system though, lies in its ability to allow each generationto integrate new information from the periphery, and to build into the system new ideas andnew values. Lotman’s semiosphere is not a single coding structure, but rather a multi-level,highly complex and adaptive conglomerate of interconnected but different social sub-systemsand semiocultural spaces, marked by a diversity of communication elements or networks,and specialized functions. Over time our meaning-systems come into contact with othercultures and these incursions have an effect on the internal structure of the worldview ofeach of the affected cultures, providing a process of collision, interaction, transaction,transition and renewal (Wright 2007, Lotman 1990).

From the centre of a culture to the edges, untranslatability increases. Tension builds upon the boundaries of these semiocultural spaces where there is a confrontation and interactionbetween different socio-cultural codings and this reactivates semiotic dynamism. Thesedisruptive encounters draw out creativity and new ideas and new languages can emerge. Itis from this creative function that new meaning-systems can come into being. A culture’speriphery is the area that provides the most innovative semiotic activity. We see a shift infocus from the centre’s conventionality to the boundary’s instability, where we are influencedby transcultural engagements. Unfamiliarity precipitates an uncertainty that cannot be fullyperceived through conventional codified meaning-systems. An untranslatable phenomenonactivates the creative function, thus generating new information, creating innovation in thecommunication process. Semiotic mediation, acting as a bridge between the human beingand the immediate environment, provides a space for imagination, reflection, adaptation andthe construction of new signs and sign systems, allowing for new language structures toemerge to facilitate shared experiences, and to support newly formulated cultural conventions.The innovative potentiality of this communication process draws out creative resolutionswhich can take the form of new ideas, new artefacts and new languages. It is from this cre-ative process that new meaning systems and new cultures come into being (Lotman 1990).

So the development of human systems of symbols produced not just a new method ofcommunicating but also a new way of thinking and of using the brain. The human brainevolved in such a way as to be capable of envisioning the world in abstract terms, facilitating

11

DONNA WRIGHT

the use of symbols to replace real objects, and to communicate through both oral and writtenlanguage. Solso believes that this also paved the way for human beings to produce art thatwas both aesthetic and symbolic (2003 p41). He goes on to suggest that a consequence ofthe evolution of the human brain into a more complex and effective computational system,capable of symbolic representation, was an inquisitiveness and a tendency to seek outdeeper understandings about the world and all it encompassed; in essence an improved intel-lectualism capable of imagining.

Solso also suggests that the evolution towards an externalised symbolic universe, capableof imagination and symbolic or abstracted representation effected technological progress,complex language development, and art (2003 pp49-54). He believes that these profoundcultural changes were only achieved because the human brain was now capable of complexand abstract thought. In relation to art, he goes on to state:

At a fundamental level, a brain that could image non-present objects and render likenessof those objects was a necessary ingredient for the production of cave art and sculpture. Thattype of brain would require a complicated nervous system capable of perceiving, storing,and processing vast amounts of information. It would require the capacity to image the worldand act symbolically (2003 p59).

Through cognitive evolution and complex epigenetic and evolutionary social systemsdevelopment, we have acquired a symbolic system uniquely structured for the establishmentof abstract concepts, classes and hierarchies, acting as a form of social interaction, generatingroles and role relationships. Constrained in a system, the meaning of symbols can be fixedand shared socially, becoming fully conventional (Zlatev 2003). Paradoxically though, whenconventional mimetic and symbolic meaning-systems become internalized, it results in asemiotic mediation that acts as a bridge between the human being and the immediate world,and the higher level of conventionality contained within these symbol-systems actually allowsthe human being more creativity and flexibility and thus more freedom to reflect and constructnew meaning.

Creative intelligence, or the creative function, is activated and is present when atext/artefact comes into being from this process of reflection. Solso (2003) suggests thatwhile there is a universal principle of perception and cognition, the enormous diversity inthe interpretive capacities of humans indicates that we are highly distinctive in our creativity.The second of Bloom’s five essential elements of the collective learning machine is diversitygeneration, which plays a vital part in this creative process of designing and constructingnew variations in meaning (2000). Semiotic dynamism is reactivated in the field of tensionbuilt up on a culture’s periphery, and this is where new languages or meaning-systems comeinto being. Lotman states that ‘because the semiotic space is transected by numerousboundaries, each message that moves across it must be many times translated and transformed,and the process of generating new information thereby snowballs’ (2000 p140). The peri-pheries are the frontier areas where semiotic activity is intensified because there are constantinvasions from the outside. Lotman argues that ‘every system which fulfils the entire rangeof semiotic possibilities not only transmits ready-made messages but also serves as a gener-ator of new ones’ (1990 p13). As Lotman notes, ‘Any culture is constantly bombarded bychance isolated texts which fall on it like a shower of meteorites […] Not the texts whichare included in a continuing tradition which has an influence on the culture, but isolated anddisruptive invasions […] They are important factors in the stimulus of cultural dynamics’(1990 p18).

12

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

When two cultures are placed in a situation of exchange and influence, translation betweenone and the other, while necessary, is ultimately impossible, and this precipitates a negotiationprocess which results in the creation of approximate equivalences. Lotman sees these approx-imate equivalences as ‘one of the most important features of any creative thinking […] forgingnew semiotic connections’ (1990 p37). As Clark explains it; ‘it is the lack of fit betweentexts, languages, and cultures that creates the conditions for semantic enrichment [and] thecreation of new meaning’ (1992 p3). Every language expresses its own cultural values andconventions and therefore its own worldview, its own structural system of the world. Sinceeach language is structured differently two semantic systems are mutually inaccessibletherefore translation is impossible. This means that there can only be negotiation in meaningwhen cultures come into contact with each other, although as Eco (2003) points out, thisnegotiation process does not exclude the presence of rules or of conventions. Eco refers toPeirce’s notion of content, form and interpretation, in that interpretations add value to thecontent of the interpreted expression because every interpretation will focus on the contentfrom a different point of view; ‘thus all interpretation of the same expression cannot bemutually synonymous, and every expression resembles a homonymous term conveying adifferent interpretation’ (Eco 2003 p13).

This hypothesis correlates with visual dissonance, a type of psychological tension, whichoccurs when we experience a discrepancy between what we expect to see and what we actuallysee. When our expectations are not fulfilled a resolution to the tension is required eitherthrough reduction, reinterpretation or change. Visual dissonance can prompt us to find amore complex message or construct a new meaning. This also corresponds with Waldrop’sideas concerning complexity and emergence in that we engage in spontaneous self-organisa-tion and adaptive behaviour in an effort to bring chaos and order into balance (1994). Hisnotion that ‘the edge of chaos is where life has enough stability to sustain itself and enoughcreativity to deserve the name of life’ supports Lotman’s engagement with the periphery asa site for semiotic innovation (1994 p12).

Meaning-making is adaptive and cooperative, and as a consequence, is flexible and open.Disruptive encounters with the unfamiliar or the untranslatable, rather than shutting downthe system, will draw out creativity and new ideas and new languages can emerge and begradually absorbed into the centre. It is this generative process that is vital to cultural changeand diversity. Intercultural communication exploits this dynamism, while respecting thevarious collective and individual identities between cultures. Through the creation of exper-iential spaces for shared meaning, the reconstitution of information, ideas and values producesnew contexts. These new contexts can provide us with a space for making sense of uncertain-ties in new environments through the opportunity to interact and negotiate. They also provideunderlying conceptions that anchor and stabilise meaning, allowing the imagination to create,enhance and enrich our knowledge about the world.

Creative arts practice provides interactive, reflective, analytical contexts in which to drawout new knowledge, and this can be demonstrated in the small selection of visual artefactsprovided in this article. Artistic expression utilises practical creativity as a communicationtool for the development of new understanding. Sullivan suggests that art has the expressivecapacity to give vision and form to thoughts, ideas and feelings, and argues that ‘the capacityto create understanding and thereby critique knowledge is central to the visual arts and thatartists are actively involved in these kinds of research practices’(2005 p73). This can beequally valid for contemporary artists as it was for our ancestral artisans. We use art practice

13

DONNA WRIGHT

to communicate with others through narrative, and to reconcile knowledge, attitudes, beliefsand behaviours. Because art can effectively mediate other cultural forms, it can also provideconnections between people and cultures, and between past and present. Therefore, visualculture will always have the ability to cross cultural boundaries and to make comment onand about the periphery. What follows are the beginnings of an ‘ideas-space’ where variousvisual artefacts can be placed, allowing us to momentarily reach across time and cultures tointeract with our imagination and provide for possibilities of new intercultural connectionsand understandings.

Innovative Creative EncountersArchaelogocal finds suggest that silk has been commercially produced in China since around6000BC, with the earliest evidence of trade with Egypt dating around 1070BC (Lubec et al1993). It is generally agreed that Chinese silk reached the Mediterranean via trade routesduring the Han Dynasty in the 2nd century BC or earlier. Recent archaeological evidencesuggests that in addition to the overland Silk Road there was a marine Silk Road connectingChina with Southern Asia, Africa and Europe, facilitating reciprocal trade and cultural ex-change. It is also recorded in historical documents that porcelains, clothes, silk and othergoods made in China were shipped to other countries through an ocean route. The merchantships usually set off from ports in south China’s Fujian and Guangdong provinces, and wouldarrive in Egypt and Rome via India.

Ancient artefacts provide us with insights into past societies and cultural norms. Our ex-posure to them produces new ideas, and new ways of seeing ourselves in relation to our ownculture’s history and in relation to other, less familiar cultures. Human history reveals acontinuous cross-cultural fertilisation of ideas. The earthenware figurine in fig 1 of a femaledancer dated 2nd or 3rd century BC, wears the traditional silk costume of the Western HanDynasty. What is striking is the attention to detail in the facial expression and the attemptto capture the dancer’s movements through the exploitation of the suppleness of the fabric.

The bronze figurine of a dancer in fig 2 is also dated around the 2nd century BC and isidentified as Egyptian, in the Hellenistic style. We know that trade between Egypt and Chinaflourished during this period, both via sea and land routes. The translucent hijab wrappedaround her head, shoulders and body suggests the fine fabric of Chinese silk. The transparencyand sheen of the silk has provided the artist with greater opportunity to express form andmovement. The style was unusual in Egypt during this period, although the sculptor is clearlyinfluenced by Greek artists of the time, who were attempting to express emotive realism insculptural form. In Egypt however, a more commonplace treatment of the figure is seen infig 3, in this statuette dated around the same period.

In the Roman Empire, from 50BC, silk was much sought after, first by the nobility andthen by the general population. It was very expensive, and its import began to have a damagingeffect on the Roman economy. During the reign of Tiberous [AD14–37] a sumptuary lawwas passed which forbade men from wearing silk garments but this had little effect. By theAD200 Roman mosaics are incorporating the material into their broader cultural narratives.In fig 4, a Roman girl, scantily clad in silk dances to a musician's tune.

The Timurid Empire, of Turko-Mongol descent, was founded in the 14th century and en-compassed Central Asia, parts of India, Mesopotamia and Caucasus. Later, in the 16th century

14

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

the Timurids invaded India, founding the Mughal Empire which ruled the Indian subcontinentwell into the 18th century, eventually being ousted by the British Raj in 1857.

The Ottoman Empire reigned concurrently from 1299–1923 and at the height of its powerspanned three continents, controlling most of Southeastern Europe, Middle East and NorthAfrica. While encouraging cultural autonomy, the empire significantly impacted on cross-cultural fusions over six centuries, following in the footsteps of intercultural communicationand exchange facilitated during the Byzantine Empire. Their distinctly pluralistic artisticrepresentations mirror the rich, cultural diversity of both empires.

The Persian miniature in fig 5 is dated c.1430 and resides in the Timurid period. It repres-ents a scene from the epic poem, Haft Paykar (The Seven Beauties) written by Nezāmi-yeGanjavi in the 12th century, and depicts what has come to be a familiar scene in Europeanartworks up to and beyond the 19th century; the Turkish bathhouse and the Sultan’s harem.

Ingres’ fascination with the cultures of the Ottoman Empire, provide us with valuable in-formation about how Europeans perceived the customs and social norms of this period.Again we see silk playing an aesthetic role in emphasising the lavish environment of theTurkish Sultanate (Fig 5). Other artefacts are beautifully detailed. As in Haft Paikar, theodalisque and the harem of beautiful women spark our imagination, conjuring up the exoticways of the ‘other’.

In the Addaura caves on the slopes of Monte Pelligrino in Sicily is an extraordinary, en-graved wall panel, part of which depicts a group of 13 figures in some form of dance orritual (fig 8). The engravings on limestone cave walls are variously dated between 8,000and 11,000BC. The figures are drawn in a naturalistic style with exceptional skill and anassuredness and understanding of perspective, foreshortening and anatomy. The smallMeditteranean island of Sicily has been continually influenced by contact with many cultures.Sicilians have one of the most interesting and diverse genetic heritages which reflect a veryearly, common ancestry with Middle East, North Africa and the Caucasus region of west-central Asia, and this dates back at least 8,000BC coinciding with the development of agri-culture (Oppenheimer and Bradshaw Foundation 2008). While a number of interpretationshave been put forward these engravings (below) are clearly representative of the community’scultural beliefs and customs, and as a language, forms an overarching narrative that is famil-iar to most cultures around world.

Both Matisse and Picasso’s overt fascination with all things ‘primitive’ in art and culturalpractice had a profound effect on the language of art in Europe in the early years of the 20thcentury. It provided new ways to communicate the complexities of a culture rapidly movinginto modernity. Matisse frequented the Mediterranean region, including its islands, from asearly as the late 1890’s. Could it be that during his travels in and around Sicily he was privyto local knowledge about the Epipaleolithic caves on the slopes of Monte Pelligrino? Thecentral dance circle in Matisse’s Joy of Live (1905-6) and his famous wall mural, The Dance(1910) show a striking resemblance to the form, composition and fluidic style of theseprimitive carvings.

It is said that Picasso first encountered a Fang head sculpture, similar to the one shownbelow in fig 12, through Matisse in 1906. Matisse and Picasso reportedly had long discussionsconcerning African art, which ignited both artists’ ongoing interest in the art of these cultures.In 1907 Picasso visited the Musée d’Ethnographie du Trocadéro where he was confrontedwith what he described as ‘all these objects that people had created with a sacred, magicalpurpose, to serve as intermediaries between them and the unknown, hostile forces surrounding

15

DONNA WRIGHT

them, attempting in that way to overcome their fears by giving them colour and form’. Heimmediately began reworking a painting he had titled ‘Les Demoiselles d’Avignon’ (fig 11).

Picasso never actually visited Africa, so his experience with African cultures was limitedto selected encounters through dealers, collectors, and other artists being influenced byAfrican artefacts arriving from the newly formed French colonies. These cross-cultural en-counters profoundly inspired early Cubism which is arguably one of the most influentialmovements in the history of modern art.

ConclusionThis article supports the premise that art making and visual imaging effectively facilitatescreative discourse across cultures. The outcome of the application of this is the generationof knowledge and understanding that is both socially and culturally meaningful, that canprovide an environment conducive to setting up sites for shared understanding, that can en-courage creative forms of expression, and that can provide for a multiplicity of ways of en-countering and representing intercultural experiences. Our imagination and our creativityare not only important to individual artistic production and interpretation, but are also crucialto pulling us as human beings toward collective social experiences, providing spaces forsharing those experiences with unfamiliar ‘others’ and in turn encouraging a continuingdiscourse which can promote deeper understandings about our global community.

16

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

Fig 1: Statuette of a female dancer [China] 3rd or 2nd Century BC

17

DONNA WRIGHT

Fig 2: Bronze Figurine of a Dancer [Egypt] 2nd Century BC

18

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

Fig 3: Statuette of a Woman [Egypt] 2nd Century BC

19

DONNA WRIGHT

Fig 4: Mosaic of Musician and Dancer [Italy] 2nd Century

20

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

Fig 5: Haft Paikar (Seven Beauties) Miniature on Paper, [Timurid Empire], Circa.1430

Fig 6: La Grande Odalisque, Ingres [France] 1814, Oil on Canvas

21

DONNA WRIGHT

Fig 7: Ingres – Turkish Bath [France] 1862, Oil on Canvas

22

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

Fig 8: Limestone Carvings of a Ritual Dance [Sicily] 8,000-11,000BC

23

DONNA WRIGHT

Fig 9: Joy of Life, Matisse [France] 1905-06

Fig 10: The Dance, Matisse [France] 1910

24

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

Fig 11: Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, Picasso [France] 1907

25

DONNA WRIGHT

Fig 12: Fang Sculpture [West Africa]19th C

ReferencesBartlett, F. 1932. Remembering - A study in experimental and social psychology, (reprinted 1977),

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bloom, H. 2000. Global brain: The evolution of mass mind from the big bang to the 21 st century.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Bodley, J.H. 1994. Cultural anthropology: Tribes, states, and the global system. California: Mayfield.Clark, H.1992. ‘The Universe of interpretations’ in The Semiotic Review of Books 3(1):6-8,

<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca>Eco, U. 2003. Mouse or rat: Translation as negotiation. London: Phoenix.Lotman, Y. 1990. Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture, (trans. Ann Shukman). Bloom-

ington, IN: Indiana University Press.Lubec, G., Holaubek, J., Feldl, C., Lubec, B., and Strouhal, E.1993. ‘Use of silk in ancient Egypt’in

Nature, March 4, 1993.Oppenheimer, S., and Bradshaw Foundation. 2008. ‘Journey of mankind: Peopling of the world’,

Bradshaw Foundation, < http://www.bradshawfoundation.com>Pope, R. 2005. Creativity: Theory, history, practice. London: Routledge.Solso, R.L. 1996. Cognition and the visual arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.--2003. The psychology of art and the evolution of the conscious brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Sullivan, G. 2005. Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts. California: Sage Publications.Uexkull von, J. 1982 [1940]. ‘The theory of meaning’, Semiotica, 42(1):25-82. Berlin: DeGruyter.Waldrop, M. 1994.Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. London: Penguin.Wright, D. 2007. Big Blue Ball: Pictures, people, place (Books 1 – 3). Lismore: Southern Cross Uni-

versity.

26

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

Zlatev, J. 2003. ‘Meaning = Life (+Culture): An outline of a unified biocultural theory of meaning’ inSGBWP5: Working papers of the project, Language, gesture and pictures from the point ofview of semiotic development, Department of Linguistics and Phonetics. Lund, Sweden:Lund University.

IllustrationsFigure 1: “Statuette of a female dancer” [China] 3rd or 2nd Century BC, New York: Metropolitan Mu-

seum of Art.Figure 2: “The Baker Dancer” [Egypt] 2nd Century BC, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.Figure 3: “Statuette of a Woman” [Egypt] 2nd Century BC, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.Figure 4: “Dancer and musician” [Italy] 2nd Century AD, floor mosaic, Vatican: Museo Pio-Clementino.Figure 5: Haft Paikar, [Timurid Empire], circa.1430, miniature on paper, New York: Metropolitan

Museum of Art.Figure 6: La Grande Odalisque, Jean August Ingres, 1814, oil on canvas, 88.9 × 162.56 cm, Paris:

Musée du Louvre.Figure 7: Turkish bath, Jean August Ingres, 1862, oil on canvas, 108 cm , Paris: Musée du Louvre.Figure 8: “Addura Cave Ritual Scene”, [Sicily] 8,000-11,000BC, Limestone carvings at Monte Pelli-

grino.Figure 9: Le bonheur de vivre (Joy of Life), Henri Matisse, 1905-06, 175 x 241 cm, Merion, PA: Barnes

Foundation.Figure 10: The Dance (second version) Henri Matisse, 1910, oil on canvas, 260 × 391 cm St. Petersburg:

The Hermitage.Figure 11: Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, Pablo Picasso, 1907, oil on canvas, 243.9 × 233.7 cm, New

York: Museum of Modern Art.Figure 12: Fang sculpture [West Africa]19th Century, Paris: Musée du Louvre.

About the AuthorDr. Donna WrightDr. Wright specialises in communication and creative innovation, and as such, her scholarshipis diverse, covering creative arts practice-based research, social systems theory, cultural se-miotics, intercultural communication, theories of creativity, cognitive psychology, visualstudies and education. She has been an arts practitioner for over 18 years, and has beeneducating adults, both in the vocational and higher education sector, for 17 years. Utilisingthe creative arts and new communications technologies, Wright’s ongoing research buildson our understanding of both the nature of meaning making and the significance of creativityand creative practice in setting up sites which can support innovative thinking about contem-porary cultural issues.

27

DONNA WRIGHT