The Essentials of Organ Improvisation

Abstract

Organ improvisation is a practical, noble, respectable art with an intense history and remarkable achievements. Although the results of practising it are ephemeral, the theoretical descriptions and volumes written about it allow us to conclude that it is an essential phenomenon for humanity in music. Depending on the adopted optics, a look at organ improvisation will be characterised by issues and cognitive apparatus characteristic of a given discipline.
Following and developing concepts presented in my article, ‘The Art of Stylish Organ Improvisation’ published in issue 390 of “The Organ” (Szostak, 2019) and my paper, ‘Creativity and Artistry in Organ Music’ from issue 391 (Szostak, 2020), in this current study I should like to look at the phenomenon in an interdisciplinary manner, from three seemingly distant perspectives: 1) instrumental studies – as the primary field, on which, from the practical side, every musical improvisation takes place; 2) aesthetics – as a theoretical science on art and beauty derived from philosophy, and 3) management – as a field both theoretical and practical, combining the components of science (knowledge) and art (skills), and dealing with the efficient implementation of goals.
This article aims to answer the following research questions: first, How can aesthetic theory broaden our view of the improvisation process? And second, What is the difference between virtuosity, artistry and creativity in improvisational activities? The following research methods were applied to answer these questions: a critical analysis of the literature in the field of instrumental music, aesthetics and management, as well as the autoethnography of an organist with over 20 years of experience, a university professor and researcher in the field of management aesthetics, creation and creativity.

Full text

4 No 405 | THE OR GAN | SUMME R 2023
improvisation
The essentials of Organ
Photos of the author, supplied by the author

SUM MER 20 23 | TH E ORGA N | N o 40 5 5
Dr Michał Szostak
Introduction
■rgan improvisation is a
practical, noble, respectable
art with an intense history and
remarkable achievements. Although the
results of practising it are ephemeral, the
theoretical descriptions and volumes
written about it allow us to conclude that
it is an essential phenomenon for
humanity in music. Depending on the
adopted optics, a look at organ
improvisation will be characterised by
issues and cognitive apparatus
characteristic of a given discipline.
Following and developing concepts
presented in my article, ‘The Art of
Stylish Organ Improvisation’ published
in issue 390 of “The Organ” (Szostak,
2019) and my paper, ‘Creativity and
Artistry in Organ Music’ from issue 391
(Szostak, 2020), in this current study I
should like to look at the phenomenon
in an interdisciplinary manner, from
three seemingly distant perspectives:
1. instrumental studies – as the primary
eld, on which, from the practical
side, every musical improvisation
takes place;
2. aesthetics – as a theoretical science on
art and beauty derived from
philosophy, and
3. management – as a eld both
theoretical and practical, combining
the components of science
(knowledge) and art (skills), and
dealing with the ecient
implementation of goals.
This article aims to answer the following
research questions: rst, How can
aesthetic theory broaden our view of the
improvisation process? And second,
What is the dierence between
virtuosity, artistry and creativity in
improvisational activities? The following
research methods were applied to answer
these questions: a critical analysis of the
literature in the eld of instrumental
music, aesthetics and management, as
well as the autoethnography of an
organist with over 20 years of experience,
a university professor and researcher in
the eld of management aesthetics,
creation and creativity.
Artistic improvisation as an object
Although a dictionary denition of
improvisation as “spontaneous
composing of a work, under the
inuence of emotions and without
preparation” (‘Improvisation’, 2000,
p. 126) refers only to artistic activity, it
should be borne in mind that the
phenomenon of improvisation occurs in
every eld of human activity to varying
degrees. Artistic improvisation, as an
activity combining the creative
component (artistry and creativity) and
the component of reproduction
(performing) in a spontaneous, one-o
and unique process (Oleszkiewicz, 1997),
can be analysed from the perspective of
self-management because it contains the
tension between the objectivity of a form
and the subjectivity of spontaneous
production (Dahlhaus, 2007). Several
factors determining the nal eect in an
improvised work can be successfully
analysed and consciously controlled.
Historically speaking, spontaneous
artistic activity was the primary source
from which art was born. Music, the
central area of analysis in this work, is
considered one of the highest forms of art
due to its ephemerality and lack of
physical form (Dutton, 2019, p. 354).
Before artists practising the synthetic
(from a modern point of view) triple
chorea work began composing their
repetitive works (mimesis), improvised
performances were mostly used for
entertainment and worship, commonly
and naturally. Thus, it can be said that
improvisation is an immanent and
fundamental feature of artistic creation
(Tatarkiewicz, 2015, pp. 23–26; Szostak,
2021a). In the sense of experimentation,
musical improvisation, especially in
monophonic cultures (Gregorian chant),
was a phenomenon preceding the
materialisation of the rst pieces of
music: initially tried, then memorised
and transmitted verbally, then written
down. Improvisation is also credited
with developing polyphony
(Chodkowski, 1995) and new musical
forms in the following centuries. The
evolution of keyboard instruments also
favoured improvisation, resulting in
organists being amongst the leading
improvisers to this day (‘Improvisation’,
2000, p. 126).
From the formal point of view, there
are three types of creation in improvised
music:
1. creativity based on a specic musical
theme(s) in close communication
with the form, such as a sonata-
allegro, fugue, partita, variation, or
consisting in adding components to
existing work in a specic form, e.g.,
basso continuo;
2. creativity involving the introduction
of one part to an existing work, such
as a cadenza in an instrumental
concerto, and
3. creation resulting in a wholly new and
autonomous work, such as free
fantasy, an impression (Chodkowski,
1995).
Since the formal side of artistic
improvisation is limited to the issues
described above, it can be concluded that
the creative attitude of the improviser
should be focused primarily on the
content of the statement. However, this
does not mean that an improviser should
not undertake creative activities in form.
In any case, the improviser should be
aware of the impact of improvisation in
terms of content and form with regard to
the recipient’s perception.
Generating musical works “here and
now” is oen seen as a knowledge-based
process that improvisers draw on
(Wilson, 2021, pp. 355–373). Although
O

6 No 405 | THE OR GAN | SUMME R 2023
improvisation can be perceived as a
random activity, the process is usually
well organised and based on deep
knowledge of the area, experience, and
intuition; no less important is the sense
of identity of the improviser (Palhares,
Branco and Gonçalves, 2021).
A feature of a good artist – that is,
focusing on universal values and ideas
that are understandable and relevant to
humanity, regardless of the era (Szostak,
2021a) – also refers to the qualities of a
good improviser. On this basis, a good
improviser should have layers of
creativity, intuition, sensitivity, the
ability to “lose him/herself” in they do
into the creative process (from the
conceptual to the implementation
phase), self-analysis and self-correction
(Szostak and Sułkowski, 2021b; Szostak,
2022). No less critical for the ecient
Camille Saint-Saëns

SUM MER 20 23 | TH E ORGA N | N o 40 5 7
performance of artistic improvisation are
the ability to set and achieve goals, the
ability to observe the world, persistent
and consistent work on one’s skills from
an early age and throughout life, mental
toughness, openness, perceptiveness,
responsibility, self-discipline (Szostak,
2019). In turn, the most enduring goals of
the improviser include bringing the
recipient to a state of catharsis, giving the
recipient satisfaction and pleasure,
materialising ideas, conveying universal
values and transforming ugliness into
beauty.
The improviser’s personal qualities
play an essential role in the improvisa -
tion activity; however, the role of the
environment and surroundings in which
the improviser functions and performs
specic improvisations should also be
seen as a critical factor (Kochereva, 2019).
It is hard to imagine focusing on
improvising when the improviser is
aware of the environment’s reluctance to
accept this form of creativity.
In the context of improvisation,
interference between the creator and the
recipient of the same work is impossible,
due to the ephemeral nature of
improvised production. In this process,
the possibility of permanent recording
allows the improviser to become a
recipient of his production. It takes time
for the creator to perceive his work as a
recipient. I have had many situations
where a recording of my improvisation,
listened to just aer the performance (or
a few hours/days later), gave the
impression of a bad result: I heard (or
maybe even felt) all the nuances of the
performance remembered from the
creative-performing process.
Nevertheless, aer a
few weeks/ months/
years, the same
recording appeared
good, passionate and
convincing. The only
reason for the change
in perception was the
time factor that
allowed me to forget
the details of the
creative process, to
hear the work of art
without the “ballast”
associated with the
creative process.
This example also
conrms that the
creator can be
considered a “tool in
the hands of many
factors” of which he
is unaware and does
not fully understand
during the creative
process. Many
accounts preserved
in art history about
the destruction of their works by artists
(Johannes Brahms, Fryderyk Chopin)
may conrm this thesis.
Key requirements of an improviser
The improviser should possess three key
requirements in inuencing the listener:
virtuosity, creativity and artistry. These
competencies are independent propert -
ies, but their co exist -
ence is desirable and
mutually catalysing.
The order in which
they are listed is also
signicant: rst,
virtuosity, then (in
parallel) creativity and
artistry – although one
can argue about the
equality of creativity
and artistry.
Virtuosity
The essence of virtu os -
ity, a complex pheno -
menon, has changed
along with cultural
evolution. The
contemporary
denition of virtuosity
is based upon develop -
ing musical instru -
ments in the 19th
century and glorifying
the artist as a divine
entity endowed with
extraordinary qualities.
It is considered above-average technical
perfection in performing specic activi -
ties and presenting high crasmanship
in a specic scope (‘Virtuosity’, 2022).
In the context of
improvisation,
interference
between the
creator and the
recipient of the
same work is
impossible, due
to the ephemeral
nature of
improvised
production.

8 No 405 | THE OR GAN | SUMME R 2023
Romantic instrumentalists outdid
each other in technical prowess, which
became an end in itself for them – it was
a kind of entertaining show of oddities.
Artistic values were put aside, focusing
on technical prociency, the only
purpose of which was to amaze listeners.
Supernatural sources
of this technical
prociency were
sought in the 19th-
century virtuosos
Nicolo Paganini or
Ferenc Liszt
(Ginsborg, 2018).
The twentieth
century began to
break with the
romantic vision of
mechanical
virtuosity, especially
in its last decades. The
ability to eciently
use the technical
workshop is still
crucial, but the
individual factor,
personality or context
becomes no less important (Leech-
Wilkinson, 2018). The virtuosity concept
has become a rhetorical gure in these
circumstances, evolving from the
practical side towards artistry. This
technical prociency has been
subordinated to the overarching goal, i.e.,
the communication of specic universal
values contained in a work of art (Leech-
Wilkinson, 2018). The argument that
virtuosity itself is not the essence of art is
that despite the modern possibilities of
perfectly perfect performance with the
use of articial intelligence in terms of
precision, we are still looking for human
performers who are not as technically
perfect as machines but can breathe life
into a work, a spirit of artistry even at the
expense of mistakes or technical
imperfections.
Contemporary art research reveals
that virtuosity is still not an un am -
biguous phenomenon – even for
professionals and students of the same
eld, e.g., musical arts. Professional
musicians consider the ease of meeting
the work requirements and the level of
technical skills to be the most critical
features of virtuosity. Self-identication
as a virtuoso, mastery in one’s eld,
personal qualities, self-condence and
uniqueness were ranked further down
with much lower importance. On the
other hand, students of musical arts
dene virtuosity
mainly through the
level of technical
skills, mastery in their
eld and personal
characteristics
(Ginsborg, 2018).
There is also
researched
relationship between
the creator’s
intelligence and his
virtuosity, requiring
imagination, aware -
ness, mental navi -
gation, anticipation,
adaptation and speed
(Stachó, 2018).
Research con -
ducted on musicians
shows how many
factors constitute the phenomenon of
virtuosity in the consciousness of an
improviser (Ginsborg, 2018):
1. Aspirations:
a. regarded as a prerequisite –
without aspirations, it is dicult
to talk about the success of
achieving high technical skills
because they require much eort;
b. personal perfection – a kind of
deeply internalised goal of self-
improvement and development;
more as a permanent action than
a target state;
c. something that should be
achieved but at a later stage of
development;
d. the complete needlessness of
aspiration; ambition is not
essential in achieving virtuosity.
2. The relationship between virtuosity
and artistry:
a. artistry considered superior to
virtuosity;
b. the crucial relationship between
virtuosity and artistry;
c. virtuosity as a tool of artistry;
d. a complete lack of relationship
between virtuosity and artistry;
3. The characteristics of virtuosity:
a. technical skills;
b. a component of mastery in their
eld;
c. constitutive of self-condence;
d. ease of movement in the musical
matter;
e. virtuosity as an expression of the
improviser’s personality;
f. virtuosity giving uniqueness to
the improviser;
g. the relativity of the phenomenon
of virtuosity as a function of
various denitions of virtuosity;
4. Various ways of achieving virtuosity:
a. hard and systematic work;
b. a natural gi, talent;
c. the result of an experience in a
given eld – more broad
experience implies more
remarkable virtuosity;
d. a combination of the above
components;
5. Communication:
a. of the improviser with co-
performers (in team
improvisation);
b. an improviser with the audience
(in musical art, each audience
member counts separately, not all
as a mass);
c. spectacularity – giving
improvisation the character of an
unusual event;
d. the vital role of the listener’s
activity in the process of reception;
e. transferring the message from the
improviser to the listener.
Having a choice of factors constituting
virtuosity, most musicians indicate that
it results from hard work, and experience
and talent are only secondary factors
(Ginsborg, 2018). Despite the continuous
evolution of virtuosity, it is still an
essential factor, and even a synthetic
indicator, of the quality of a performer of
art (Heredia-Carroza, 2019).
Creativity
The term “artist” has a narrower meaning
than the term “creator” (in the sense of a
creative individual). An artist is a person
Romantic
instrumentalists
outdid each
other in
technical
prowess, which
became an end
in itself for them

SUM MER 20 23 | TH E ORGA N | No 405 9
who produces works of art, while a
creator produces results of various kinds
(Gołaszewska, 1986, p. 7). The dictionary
denition of creativity refers to the
ability to create or use original and
unusual ideas or to create something
new or imaginative (‘Creativity’, 2023a).
The synonyms of creativity are ingenuity,
innovation, inventiveness and originality
(‘Creativity’, 2023b). The essence of
creativity is a set of qualitative features of
the thought process (divergence and
convergence; smoothness, exibility,
originality; breadth of categorisation;
sensitivity to the problem; abstraction,
synthesis, rearrangement of ideas), as
well as imagination, fantasy and
individual personality characteristics
(dynamism, focus on creative searches).
creative activity, creative well-being,
independence) implemented in the
creative activity of a given person
(Kochereva, 2019).
In order to answer the question of
what makes a person undertake creative
activity in the eld of art, one should
refer to the achievements of aesthetics,
which distinguished two types of
personality by developing the concepts
of “basic personality” and “creative
personality” (Gołaszewska, 1984, pp.
167–175). A basic personality is a set of a
person’s given features that dene the
individual’s characteristics. Creative
personality, on the other hand, is the
choice of basic personality traits that
determine the beginning of creative
activity, its continuation, and give shape
to work. The creative personality
develops against the background of the
basic personality. We will never nd a
complete reection of any personality in
a work, although we can deduce traces of
a creative personality from a work
(Daniel, 2021).
The issue of creative personality is
connected with artistic style. While the
artist’s overall output allows for
reconstructing the author’s creative
personality, a given work allows for
reconstructing a specic approach to the
world, the point of view from which all
the phenomena presented in a work are
captured (Szostak, 2020).
Researchers analysing artists’
creative process divide its conceptual,
experimental, implementation and post-
implementation phases. This made it
possible to create a typology of creative
personalities (Gołaszewska, 1984, pp.
176–189):
1. creative personality of the intuitive
type, characterised by a close
entanglement of the phases of
experience and realisation, with the
participation of pre-reective
awareness (an essential type of
creative personality for an
improviser);
2. creative personality of the reective
type, characterised by a clear
separation of phases, with the
experience phase preceding the
implementation phase; the creator
oen hesitates in the choice of ideas
and means of expression; the creative
process is long, the creator controls
his intentions, creates a concept, and
then implements it;
3. creative personality of the
behavioural type is characterised by
separation from the phases of the
creative process, with the
JS Bach

10 No 405 | THE O RGAN | SUM MER 202 3
implementation phase to some extent
preceding the experience phase; it can
be compared to trial and error; the
creator does not know what the nal
work should look like until the
creative process is complete.
Artists attempting to develop
creativity may ask where the creator
should look for his creativity. The theory
of personality points to the search for
one’s creativity within oneself, within
one’s personality. Looking for one’s own
creativity in the works of other artists
leads to imitation. The natural source of
one’s creativity is found in the creative
personality. This “creative child”
personality should be educated and
developed; the growth of one’s creativity
should be every conscious individual’s
natural goal.
The sources of artistic creativity may
result from inspiration; the act of creat -
ing in the image of nature; discovering
timeless ideas and incorporating them
into the work; the imitation of divine
creativity; meeting the needs of a social
group (sociological theory of creativity);
excess energy that remains aer
satisfying basic needs (physiology of
human life); the state of culture and the
approach to artistic ideals at a given level
of human development (cultural
approach); the sum of the socio-
economic (ideological) conditions in
which the artist lives (historical
approach); expressing the creator’s
personality (psychological approach)
(Gołaszewska, 1984, pp. 189–198).
Psychological theories of artistic
creativity include:
1. creativity as inspiration,
2. creativity as work,
3. creativity as personality expression,
and
4. creativity as an essential ingredient of
wisdom (Gołaszewska, 1984, pp. 189–
204).
In the model of creativity as inspiration,
the artist achieves signicant artistic
eects not thanks to his knowledge or
skills but to inspiration, a set of factors
that do not have to be rationally
explained but come to the fore in
spontaneous moments. The inspiration
results are unpredictable, and the
uniqueness of the work is due to the
uniqueness of the conceptual process
that has led to its creation.
In the model of creativity, eort and
overcoming obstacles are critical.
Although possessing natural abilities,
humans must work on them to create
works of art. The necessary properties of
creativity in this model are the awareness
of the rules of creation and the ability to
implement them.
In the model that recognises
creativity as an expression of personality,
it is suggested that the creator expresses
what others feel through their
expression. The creator’s consciousness
controls their expression, which
underlies creativity. Art is understood
here as communication, especially
communication of internal states.
Creators externalise and artistically
develop their internal states to allow the
recipients to contemplate them.
In the model of creativity as a
necessary component of wisdom, it is
recognised that an intelligent and wise
individual has creative skills, by
Max Reger

SUM MER 20 23 | TH E ORGA N | No 405 11
denition. Wisdom is also a masterable
quality, described by Aristotle as a
combination of intellect, scientic
knowledge, instrumental knowledge,
practical knowledge, and particular
subsidiary virtues such as ingenuity,
prudence, and cleverness (Gołaszewska,
1984, pp. 215–227).
Based on dictionary denitions,
creativity is a multifaceted phenomenon
that produces new and valuable results.
Hence, the phenomenon of creativity
refers to the component of creativity
(novelty) and quality (valency of the
eect).
Many components and stages of the
creative process have been distinguished,
the analysis and management of which
allow for undertaking creative activities
in various circumstances. It has been
found that every child is born creative,
but educational and socialisation
processes that impose many restrictions
suppress their innate creativity (Gloton
and Clero, 1988, pp. 75–92); in this
context, the process of recreating or
“digging” to the natural deposits of
creativity becomes crucial (Dahlberg,
2007).
The concepts of creativity can be
divided into general concepts of the
creative process (classical and
contemporary), which emphasise the
phases and stages of the creative process.
Systemic concepts of creativity, which, by
emphasising many independent
components of creativity (mental, social,
cultural), consider creativity to be a
dynamic system in which the eect is
more than the simple sum of the actions
of its individual components (Nłcka,
2000, pp. 783–806).
According to the classical theory, the
creative process consists of four
successive stages:
1. preparation – performing the initial
steps of collecting data and
formulating the problem;
2. incubation – spontaneous maturation
of an idea, regardless of intentional
work on this idea;
3. illumination – associated with a
sudden solution to the problem as a
consequence of an unexpected change
in the perception of the problem; and
4. verication – checking the suitability
of the developed solution.
There are also concepts – conrming
the aesthetic theory of the creative
personality – stating that creativity is a
skill available to virtually everyone,
characterised by creating new
connections and generating new ideas.
Dierentiated thinking and the ability to
go beyond the beaten track can catalyse
the potential to produce original and
valuable results. In
order for the above
potentials to occur,
certain dispositions
are needed, which
include: personal
characteristics, an
aective process,
cognitive abilities,
expertise and
prociency in a given
eld, motivation,
intellectual abilities,
support from the
cultural environment,
as well as imagination
and the ability to
evaluate ideas and
implement activities.
Apart from these
dispositions, mutual
relations between all dispositions are
also important; any changes or
disturbances in these relations will imply
changes in the creative process and
determine the resultant shape (Ferrari,
Cachia and Yves, 2009).
In the spirit of dialectics, creativity
can be analysed in comparison with its
opposite, the xation on clinging to one
way of doing things despite changing
circumstances. The long-term impact of
restrictions, which eventually become
habits, can lead to xation (Crilly, 2019).
The social role of individuals also
inuences creativity, but not in the same
way for everyone. In this context, the
perception of roles is an essential factor
in perceiving the phenomenon of
creativity (Szostak and Sułkowski,
2021a). Also, an individual’s identity
crisis can positively and negatively aect
creativity. Identity tensions, ways of
using these tensions (e.g. through
paradoxical thinking) and deliberate and
unintentional changes in identity can be
an excellent form of catalysing creativity.
Internal or external circumstances may
determine changes in complex identities
seeking new directions in their activities
(Szostak and Sułkowski, 2021a).
Creativity can be considered from
a subjectivist and an objectivist
perspective in the context of constraints.
The subjectivist aspect draws attention
to the process of
perception of creative
activity: the same
action in the same
circumstances may
zxbe perceived
dierently by
individuals – as
creative or non-
creative. The
objectivist aspect
emphasises that
creativity is not
unlimited and may
be limited by factors
internal and external
to the creative
individual (Cra,
2003; Baer, 2012; Acar,
Tarakci and van
Knippenberg, 2019).
Internal factors limiting creativity
include fatigue, loss and weakening of
motivation and loss of inspiration.
Creative activity is an exhausting
occupation; hence the need to maintain a
long-term creative state can lead to many
negative states in the form of burnout,
depression and even loss of mind (Bulei,
Mihalcioiu and Tucmeanu, 2014;
Schreiner et al., 2018; Rasminsky, 2019;
Cullum et al., 2020). Individuals who
maintain a high level of creativity for a
long time, at the end of the creative
process, may perceive their lives and the
environment as colourless, negative,
uninspiring, and in extreme situations
even lose the sense of their existence.
This thesis can be conrmed by the
mental problems of creative individuals,
which led them to socially acceptable
limits, and even to self-mutilation (van
Gogh) or taking their own lives. It should
be assumed that the feeling of exhaustion
Creativity can be
considered from
a subjectivist
and an
objectivist
perspective in
the context of
constraints

12 No 405 | THE O RGAN | SUM MER 202 3
aer a complex and productive creative
process is a natural state. The inner post-
creative emptiness should be seen as a
natural periodic state, not as the
individual’s permanent wear and tear.
The following arguments support this
reasoning:
1. every living being needs rest aer
doing work, regardless of the type of
activity, and
2. the creative process undertaken and
carried out using the full capabilities
of the individual consumes available
energy resources.
Therefore, the inner emptiness shows
that creativity needs a proper ignition in
the form of inspiration and fuel that is a
source of creative energy in the form of
motifs (Szostak, 2021b). A convincingly
creative individual should act “despite”
constraints, not “up to” the level of
constraints. Following the principle that
when resources are used up, they should
be replenished, and similarly they should
be done with creative potential.
External factors limiting creativity
include changes in contexts (organi -
sational, social, cultural), changes in
domains, changes in systems (legal,
social), changes in rules, changes in
relationships, and changes in resources
(Baer, 2012). The lack of psychological
interventions aimed at getting out of the
elements of xation in human behaviour
(physical, emotional, intellectual,
spiritual) should be considered following
the limits of creativity (Cra, 2003).
While it is relatively easy to describe the
phenomenon from the theoretical point
of view, being a “creativity virtuoso” or
“artist of creativity” is not so easy, and the
problem of managing improvisational
creativity appears to
be complex but
crucial to achieving
valuable results.
Artistry
Before we begin to
analyse the meanders
of the meaning of the
notions of artistry and
artist, we must break
away from the
common under stand -
ing of these terms:
a sculptor is not an
artist but a sculptor;
a person playing on a
theatre stage is not an
artist, but an actor;
a person playing an
instrument is not an
artist, but a musician.
Despite dealing with
the spheres
commonly associated
with artistry, all these
people are simply
doing their job. Being
an artist in a given
area requires more than physical activity.
In order to be entitled to call himself an
improvisation artist, apart from improvi -
sation, one should also refer to universal
values, without which improvisations
remain only in the real world, at most
deserving of the name of cra if they are
appropri ately performed from the
technical side; in a
word, virtuosity.
“Artista” in Latin
meant a student of the
ne arts department
(Gołaszewska, 1986,
p. 6). A contemporary
dictionary denes an
artist as “someone
who creates things
with great skill and
imagination” (‘Artist’,
2023). Medieval
practical perception of
art said that an artist
is a person “who,
according to art,
works with tools in a
specic matter”. The
artist’s concept has
changed over time
and the evolution of
art so much that
nowadays, there is
even talk of its
redenition, i.e. the
loss of permanent
features that allow
capturing its essence
in the form of a permanent denition
(Sztabiłski, 2002).
While it is
relatively easy to
describe the
phenomenon
from the
theoretical point
of view, being
a “creativity
virtuoso” or
“artist of
creativity” is
not so easy

SUM MER 20 23 | TH E ORGA N | N o 40 5 1 3
Ancient aesthetics distinguished several
key issues that dened the artist
(Tatarkiewicz, 2015, pp.38, 130, 175,
325–328):
1. imagination,
2. thought,
3. knowledge,
4. wisdom,
5. idea in mind,
6. ability to use the rules of art: in art,
only the artist is the legislator.
Expanding this list with the
achievements of subsequent eras, one
cannot forget about the following
features of an artist (Gołasze wska, 1986):
1. creativity,
2. sensitivity,
3. intuition,
4. “becoming lost” in the creative
process (from conceptual is at ion to
implement at ion),
5. devoting everything to the creative
process,
6. self-analysis and
7. self-correction.
The most fundamental goals of the artist
include:
1. materialising and giving form to
universal ideas,
2. conveying values,
3. giving satisfaction and pleasure to the
recipient,
4. enabling the recipient to experience
catharsis,
5. transforming ugliness into beauty
(please note, that the reference to
beauty only appeared at the end of
this list).
An attempt to understand the artist’s
meaning based on the concept’s
evolution will not be complete because it
does not consider the contextual
approach based on seeing the artist in the
system of all those phenomena that
inuenced them and those they
somehow shaped. Aer all, an artist is an
individual from a given community,
subject to the same laws and growing
into someone unique due to an
individual creative personality
(Gołaszewska, 1986, pp. 51–56).
Based on Ernst Kretschmer’s theory
that an artist has a marginal type of
personality, i.e., oscillating between
health and mental illness, it can be
concluded that an artist has a personality
that exceeds the norms; hence, including
it in denitions is not easy. Artists work
in the same world as non-artists;
however, they see and feel more, oen
adopting a radicalised attitude. Despite
the above diculties, the manifestations
of the artist’s uniqueness can be
characterised by the following issues:
1. realising the improbable – creating
something out of nothing, although
oen simply juxtaposing existing
elements; despite this, the artist
creates closed works, capable of
lasting;
2. knowledge without arguments – the
artist nds answers to the question
without analysing the arguments;
artists are sometimes regarded as
precursors of theory (Leonardo da
Vinci); the artist usually has trouble
analytically and scientically
explaining his creative process;
3. generalised sensitivity – to internal
and external stimuli, to biological and
mental states; sensitivity generates a
state of solid tension in the layer of
creative personality and basic
personality;
4. absolutised freedom – above all,
“freedom from”, which oen appears
to the artist as “freedom to”;
5. objectivised subjectivism – the
uniqueness of the artist becomes
objectively signicant and
appreciated; an artist should be a
singular individual, not look for
patterns, and become a point of
reference for the individual creator;
6. consciousness destroying itself – the
artist sees gaps and contradictions in
the world, rebelling against repetition
and mediocrity; these rebellions serve
to improve oneself and increase one’s
uniqueness;
7. functional autotelism – the artist
strives for the artistic perfection of
their work, while the functionality of
the work (large, gloomy, terrifying) is
secondary;
8. rationalisation of the non-rational –
the artist is able, even in the absence
of scientic knowledge, to rationalise
what is currently not rational; science

14 No 405 | THE O RGAN | SUM MER 202 3
Saint Paul´s Anglican Church, Valparaíso
rationalises by repressing the
irrational, while the artist reaches the
essence of the irrational, includes the
irrational in individual artistic
categories, nding aesthetic values
there and bringing them closer to
humanity in the form of a work of art.
It is far more dicult to answer what
characterises a good
artist. It should be
understandable,
although we nd
examples of artists
incomprehensible to the
audience of his time, yet
aer years becoming
pillars in their elds
(Johann Sebastian Bach).
The artist should be
famous, which would
mean that they reach the
audience’s conscious -
ness; however, popularity
does not indicate the
quality of works of art.
The only attribute of a
good artist who resists
criticism is that they
should relate to universal
values and ideas that are
understandable and relevant to
humanity in the long run.
To sum up, the above considerations,
acting in a specic eld (not necessarily
art) in a way rooted in universal values
with a minimum level of technical
mastery (virtuosity) and – optionally –
with creativity should be called artistry.
Conclusion
Answering the rst research question,
aesthetic theory abounds in models that
can broaden the view of the process of
improvisation. One such model is the
concept of the aesthetic situation by
Maria Gołaszewska, which, based on its
components (creator, work of art,
recipient, real world and the world of
values) and the relationships between
these components, allows us to look at
artistic improvisation as a multi dim ens -
ional problem. Based on the components
of the aesthetic situation, the funda -
mental relationships between these
components in the context of
improvisation are as follows: in the
creative process, the improviser creates
an improvisation considered a work of
art, which the listener perceives in the
process of reception; all these elements
should have connections and inter -
actions with the world of universal
values, but they happen in the real world,
In answering the
second question,
one should be
aware of the
distinction
between virtuosity,
artistry and creat -
ivity in improvisa -
tional activity. The
primary levels of
consideration in
the art of impro -
visa tion are
virtuosity and, in
parallell, artistry
and creativity. To
be an artist of
improvisation, it is
enough to have
technical pro -
ciency (virtuosity)
and to extend this
virtuosity with the reviving universal
values (artistry) so that the listener feels
something more than just the experience
of a technically accomplished
performance. It should be noted that
creativity in the contexts mentioned
above – next to virtuosity and artistry – is
an optional factor, although always
desirable.
References
Acar, O. A., Tarakci, M. and van
Knippenberg, D. (2019) ‘Creativity
and Innovation Under Constraints:
A Cross-Disciplinary Integrative
Review’, Journal of Management,
45(1), pp. 96–121.
doi: 10.1177/0149206318805832.
‘Artist’ (2023) Cambridge Dictionary.
Available at: https://dictionary.
cambridge.org/ dictionary/english/
artist (Accessed: 3 May 2023).
Baer, J. (2012) ‘Domain specicity and the
limits of creativity theory’, Journal of
Creative Behavior, 46(1), pp. 16–29.
doi: 10.1002/jocb.002.
Bulei, I., Mihalcioiu, V. and Tucmeanu, A.
(2014) ‘The Professional vs. the
Manager - Identity Issues and Key
Features’, Valahian Journal of Economic
Studies, 5(3), pp. 31–36.
Chodkowski, A. (1995) ‘Improwizacja’,
Encyklopedia muzyki. Wydawnictwo
naukowe PWN.
Cra, A. (2003) ‘The Limits To Creativity
In Education: Dilemmas For The
Educator’, British Journal of
Educational Studies, 51(2),
pp. 113–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8527.2003.00229.x.
‘Creativity’ (2023a) Cambridge Dictionary.
Available at:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict
ionary/english/creativity (Accessed:
2 May 2023).
‘Creativity’ (2023b) Merriam-Webster.
Available at: https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/creativity
(Accessed: 2 May 2023).
Crilly, N. (2019) ‘Creativity and xation
in the real world: A literature review
of case study research’, Design Studies,
64, pp. 154–168.
doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2019.07.002.
Cullum, R. J. et al. (2020) ‘Identity in
lockdown: supporting primary care
professional identity development
in the COVID-19 generation’,
Education for Primary Care, 31(4),
pp. 200–204.
doi: 10.1080/14739879.2020.1779616.
Dahlberg, S. T. (2007) ‘Creative
Engagement’, in Supporting creative
acts beyond dissemination. Creativity &
Cognition 2007. Washington DC, pp.
1–5. doi: 10.1145/3106548.3106599.
Dahlhaus, C. (2007) Estetyka muzyki.
Warszawa: Wydawnictwa
Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Daniel, R. (2021) ‘Exploring creativity
through artists’ reections’,
Creativity Studies, 14(1), pp. 1–17.
doi: 10.3846/cs.2021.11207.
Dutton, D. (2019) Instynkt sztuki. Kraków:
Copernicus Cener Press.
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R. and Yves, P. (2009)
Innovation and Creativity in Education
and Training in the EU Member States:
Fostering Creative Learning and
Artists work in
the same world
as non-artists;
however, they
see and feel
more, often
adopting a
radicalised
attitude.

SUM MER 20 23 | TH E ORGA N | N o 40 5 1 5
Supporting Innovative Teaching, JRC
Technical Notes. Seville. Available at:
http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/%0Ahtt
ps://www.researchgate.net/publicati
on/265996963_Innovation_and_Cre
ativity_in_Education_and_Training
_in_the_EU_Member_States_Fosteri
ng_Creative_Learning_and_Support
ing_Innovative_Teaching_Literatur
e_review_on_Innovation_an.
Ginsborg, J. (2018) ‘“The brilliance of
perfection” or “pointless nish”?
What virtuosity means to
musicians’, Musicae Scientiae, 22(4),
pp. 454–473.
doi: 10.1177/1029864918776351.
Gloton, R. and Clero, C. (1988) Twórcza
aktywno´s´c dziecka. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwa Szkolne i
Pedagogiczne.
Gołaszewska, M. (1984) Zarys estetyki.
Warszawa: PWN.
Gołaszewska, M. (1986) Kim jest artysta?
Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i
Pedagogiczne.
Heredia-Carroza, J. (2019) ‘Flamenco
performer’s perceived value:
Development of a measurement
index’, Scientic Annals of Economics
and Business, 66(Specialissue), pp.
59–71. doi: 10.2478/saeb-2019-0017.
‘Improvisation’ (2000) Encyclopædia
Britannica. Edycja polska.
Wydawnictwo Kurpisz.
Kochereva, D. (2019) ‘Phenomenon of
creativity: contents, essence, features
of development’, Humanitarium,
43(1), pp. 85–92. doi: 10.31470/2308-
5126-2019-43-1-85-92.
Leech-Wilkinson, D. (2018) ‘The danger
of virtuosity’, Musicae Scientiae, 22(4),
pp. 558–561.
doi: 10.1177/1029864918790304.
Necka, E. (2000) ‘Twórczo´s´c’, in Strelau, J.
(ed.) Psychologia. Podr´scznik
akademicki. Tom 2. Psychologia ogólna.
GdaŁsk: GdaŁskie Wydawnictwo
Psychologiczne. Available at:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/296833
875/Psychologia-Tom-II-Jan-Strelau#.
Oleszkiewicz, J. (1997) I ty moz
.esz
improwizowa´c. Warszawa: Centrum
Edukacji Artystycznej.
Palhares, P. T., Branco, D. and Gonçalves,
Ó. F. (2021) ‘Mind wandering and
musical creativity in jazz
improvisation’, Psychology of Music.
doi: 10.1177/03057356211033346.
Rasminsky, A. (2019) ‘When Injury Leads
to an Identity Crisis’, Dance
Magazine, 93(7), pp. 32–35. Available
at: https://www.dancemagazine.com/
injury-depression-2638932468.html.
Schreiner, E. et al. (2018) ‘Leading
volunteers: Investigating volunteers’
perceptions of leaders’ behavior and
gender’, Nonprot Management and
Leadership, 29(2), pp. 241–260.
doi: 10.1002/nml.21331.
Stachó, L. (2018) ‘Mental virtuosity:
A new theory of performers’
attentional processes and strategies’,
Musicae Scientiae, 22(4), pp. 539–557.
doi: 10.1177/1029864918798415.
Szostak, M. (2019) ‘The Art of Stylish
Organ Improvisation’, The Organ,
(390), pp. 20–27. Available at:
https://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456
789/17687.
Szostak, M. (2020) ‘Creativity and
Artistry in Organ Music’, The Organ,
391, pp. 24–31. Available at:
https://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456
789/19170.
Szostak, M. (2021a) ‘Artistry,
Management, and Creativity: Links
and Common Denominators’,
Discourses on Culture, 16(1), pp. 23–54.
doi: 10.36145/DoC2021.08.
Szostak, M. (2021b) ‘Does entrepreneurial
factor inuence creative identities
perception?’, Entrepreneurship and
Sustainability Issues, 9(1), pp. 150–
175. doi: 10.9770/jesi.2021.9.1(9).
Szostak, M. (2022) ‘Perception of creative
identities by managers and non-
managers. Does a manager see
more?’, Entrepreneurship and
Sustainability Issues, 9(3), pp. 24–49.
doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2022.9.3(2).
Szostak, M. and Sułkowski, Ł. (2021a)
‘Identity crisis of artists during the
COVID-19 pandemic and shi
towards entrepreneurship’,
Entrepreneurial Business and
Economics Review, 9(3), pp. 87–102.
doi.org/10.15678/ EBER.2021.090306.
Szostak, M. and Sułkowski, Ł. (2021b)
‘The Identity and Self-Perception of
Artists-Managers’, Problems and
Perspectives in Management, 19(1), pp.
372–386. doi: 10.21511/ppm.
19(1).2021.32.
Sztabiłski, G. (2002) ‘Artysta:
deniowanie, redeniowanie,
oddeniowanie’, Forum, pp. 158–180.
Available at:
https://www.asp.wroc.pl/dyskurs/
Dyskurs2/GrzegorzSztabinski.pdf.
Tatarkiewicz, W. (2015) Historia estetyki.
Tom I. Warszawa: PWN.
‘Virtuosity’ (2022) Cambridge Dictionary.
Available at: https://dictionary.
cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english
/virtuosity (Accessed: 2 July 2022).