Plural Imagination: Diversity in Mind and Making
MacKisack, M., Aldworth, S., Macpherson, F., Onians, J., Winlove, C., & Zeman, A. (2022). Plural imagination: diversity in mind and making. Art Journal, 81(3), 70–87. doi:10.1080/00043249.2022.2110444
Abstract
The experience of visual mental imagery—seeing in the mind’s eye—varies widely between individuals, but perhaps because we tend to assume our own way of thinking to be everyone’s, how this crucial variation impacts art practice, and indeed art history, has barely been addressed. We seek to correct this omission by pursuing the implications of how artists with aphantasia (the absence of mental imagery) and hyperphantasia (imagery of extreme vividness) describe their working processes. The findings remind us of the need to challenge normative, universalizing models of art making and art maker.
Authors
- Matthew MacKisack4
- Susan Aldworth2
- Fiona Macpherson4
- John Onians2
- Crawford Winlove5
- Adam Zeman16
What This Study Is About
Researchers wanted to find out if the way we "see" things in our heads changes how we create art. They compared artists with aphantasia (who cannot picture things in their mind) to those with hyperphantasia (who have incredibly vivid mental images).
How They Studied It
The team interviewed 18 artists—6 with hyperphantasia and 12 with aphantasia. They asked these creators to describe exactly how they go from a blank page to a finished piece of art. The researchers wanted to see if having a "mind’s eye"—the ability to visualize—changed their creative "blueprint."
What They Found
The study discovered two very different ways of making art:
- The "Internal" Creators (Hyperphantasia): These artists often "see" the finished work in their heads first. They can rotate a 3D model or change the colors of a painting in their mind before they even pick up a brush.
- The "External" Creators (Aphantasia): Since they don't have a mental preview, these artists "find" the art as they work. They might use lots of reference photos, experiment with random marks on a canvas, or move pieces of a collage around until it "feels" right.
Surprisingly, you couldn't tell who had aphantasia just by looking at the final artwork! Both groups produced professional, beautiful, and imaginative art.
What This Might Mean
This suggests that there isn't just one "correct" type of artistic brain. While we often think of artists as people with "great imaginations" (meaning they see vivid pictures), this study shows that imagination is plural. You don't need a mental screen to be creative; you can use the physical world as your sketchbook instead.
Because this was a small study of only 18 people, we can’t say this is true for *every* artist, but it’s a big step in showing that "neurodiversity"—the different ways our brains work—is a huge part of the art world.
One Interesting Detail
One artist with aphantasia described their process as working "blindly" until a figurative image suddenly emerges from the paint—almost like they are discovering the art at the same time the viewer is!
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.