Abstract

The relationship between a creative thinker and other people raises many questions. Thought expressed in a language, perhaps mathematics, dance, sculpture, English, has a product, performers and an audience. What is a creative thinker? Do thoughts require expression at all? What is language? Are the limits of language too confining for some thoughts or too traditional to express a radically new idea? Is a listener likely to understand the thought itself, with some of the context, and is this understanding possible or unlikely considering the differences between people, especially over time and place? Does the recipient of the thought require training to understand the subtleties of the expression? Does the performer of the product offer an accurate interpretation of the thought, and will the audience be able to make the leap in imagination required to understand it? If translation is necessary what are the limits of accuracy, depending on the faithfulness of the translator? This dissertation's focus is the relationship between the thinker and the language chosen to express a thought; the relationship between interpretation by the recipients (performer, critic, or audience) and the original expression; the relationship between people, across history, culture and time who receive the expression and try to understand it, and the original creative thinker. This relationship is both interactive and essential; interactive because the creative thinker is attempting to express a thought to someone else and has an audience in mind, or the audience may have been unimaginable to the thinker. The choice of the language has limitations and sometimes the thinker pushes at the limits of this language to effectively articulate the thought, especially if it is new or different. The recipients who interpret the expression also transform the thought with their experiences and biases. How far can the thought be transformed before it is changed rather than enriched by this interaction? And where does truth lie in this relationship? The relationship is essential because without each of its participants it would not exist. Each component is interdependent, shaped by each, and has a place in history because of each. These questions will be explored.