Weaving Together the Voices: Final Comments on Aging,Creativity and Culture

First, we would like to start on a note of gratefulness to our commentators and to the journal editors for allowing us to expand on and share our views in this forum. These ideas been quite a long time in the making and we feel have come to some fruition in this article.

As we worked on this article (Adams-Price & Morse, 2024), we were able to expand and rethink our ideas. We examined our own beliefs about what we thought about creativity and how we saw it working across the life span. We are fortunate that our research partnership – for over 30 years – was based on having different perspectives and experiences that allowed us to critically examine our mutual topic and also to view ourselves as single subjects. Additionally, we were united in our belief that creativity had been cast way too narrowly over the years with individual differences largely neglected.

I (LM) came into this view with quite traditional views. My early introduction to E. P. Torrance came through my mother-in-law for whom he was a mentor at the University of Georgia during creativity’s heyday in the sixties. Thus, my early views of creativity were quite rooted in divergent thinking with little understanding of the conditions of development or impact on the individual. As a doctoral student of Robert M. Gagné, my interests were always higher-order thinking and the conditions that encouraged their production (Gagné, 1977). When I began my professional career, I worked briefly for Joe Khatena and was introduced to measurement of creativity in various ways and how people might be differentially affected (Khatena, 1982, 1992). Further, Khatena (also a student of Torrance’s) was one of the first creativity researchers to discuss the role of culture on creative output (Khatena, 1976; Khatena & Tamás, 1977). His muse was his wife Nelly who was quite an accomplished artist. Joe and Nelly were from Singapore but had roots in multiple cultures which impacted their work. Aside from these academic influences on my career, I began the study of a serious hobby late in life: fiddling. Like everything else I have studied, my first concern was to approach it as a cognitive task The complexity of fiddle playing requires psychomotor skills, intellectual skills and strategy, and insight, creativity, and motivation (especially during repetitive daily practice as foundation is built). Not only was fiddling an extremely complex task that allowed me to observe learning and creativity as part of that, it also provided me with a strong sense of identity as a novice fiddle player who actively pursues it. In a sense, it gives me daily goals and plans that contribute to my happiness post academic career. Sometimes when I am performing especially well, I find myself in a moment of flow. As regards creative strategy, master fiddle players rarely play a tune the same way. Figuring how to change it is as much a challenge as learning the basic techniques!

In contrast, I (CAP) come to the field of late life creativity from a slightly different background. My background is in life-span developmental psychology, and my primary interest long-term has been positive aspects of cognition in later life. Ever since the discovery of the classic aging pattern on IQ tests, with younger people excelling on fluid intelligence tests, especially abstract and speeded tasks, and older people excelling on crystallized intelligence tasks (such as vocabulary or geographical knowledge) (Cunningham et al., 1975), it has been known that there is a positive, integrative side to late life cognition, at least for some people (Adams-Price, 1998). That these differences may affect the kind of creative output produced by older people was illustrated by Simonton’s findings (1988) that creative domains such as abstract mathematics and lyric poetry peak relatively early in life (in one’s thirties), while domains that require the integration of knowledge such as philosophy and historical fiction peak relatively late. My interest in stylistic differences in and late creative products led to the publication of my 1998 edited book, Successful Aging and Creativity: Empirical and Theoretical Approaches. One person who strongly influenced me was the late Martin Lindauer, who spent much of his career studying late life style (Lindauer et al., 1997).

I (CAP) was writing about creativity long before I took up my own creative hobby, making wire and bead jewelry, about 25 years ago, in early middle age. I got interested in making jewelry because I had collected appealing gemstones and cabochons and wanted to make something with them. A former colleague taught me some of the basics, and soon I was hooked. My jewelry-making hobby taught me some things about creativity fairly quickly that I had not previously considered: (1) it offered me a new identity outside of my academic career. In the university town where we lived, I was known by some as the “ring lady,” because of the rings I sold every year at the annual arts festival; (2) I got a lot of satisfaction from learning new jewelry-making techniques, even if the initial product(s) with that technique might not be considered completely original (i.e. I followed a tutorial); and (3) making jewelry was a huge stress-reducer. The range of benefits I got from making jewelry got me thinking more about looking at crafts, everyday creativity, and the benefits for middle-aged and older persons.

I was also inspired by the sociological research on serious hobbies (Stebbins, 2007). Serious hobbies are hobbies that involve significant commitment and investment and which are marked by a desire to increase knowledge and expertise. I began to wonder about the impact of long-term creative hobbies on emotional well-being and cognitive efficacy. Most of the creative hobbies we have been discussing are great examples of serious hobbies.

While on the subject of serious hobbies, I (LM) think it is pertinent to look at the conditions under which we have learned them and how creativity comes into play. I have been fortunate to have a Julliard-trained violinist as my instructor whose broad experience allows her to guide me through exercises and music that have structured my development in music. Sometimes circumstances have incredible impact: I (LM) live in a small town in the rural American South, yet found this instructor in a stroke of good luck and celestial intervention. Instruction – how it is offered and encouraged, whether it is formal or informal – is very important in acquiring a complex skill. As a further example, both my research partner and I have benefited from the internet. I have taken lessons online (not the best experience), watched masters and novices play (online videos), and reviewed various web sites. As we examined our serious hobbies, we also were aware of how creativity played a role in our processes. Both jewelry making and fiddle playing encompass a wealth of support literature based on different styles and cultural regions. Additionally, what is first learned as a repetitive, simple, or model process becomes the basis for transferring approaches and creating something novel later. This process can first be learned by observing models of what others have done, and then by inserting one’s own creative strategy to the situation. In turn the process becomes more meaningful, and more available in one’s repertoire of potential products. In my own case, I am not going to become a performer but instead participate in my hobby for its own meaning and enjoyment in my life. Carolyn, however, is now an accomplished jewelry maker who frequently shows her jewelry at markets and teaches classes on jewelry making. But for both of us we were not interested in the big C. We have always been interested in the extraordinary ordinary. Both of us came to see creativity as every day, contributory and beneficial to the individual. We found this to be especially true of how it plays into identity for those aging individuals who have serious hobbies. We also saw in our research that it provided joy and pleasure, even a spiritual aspect to older individuals (Adams-Price et al., 2018). Additionally, any active form of mental exercise is a good protective factor for aging. It may not be the magic pill, but it certainly does not hurt to exercise cognitive processes.

Thus, in our experience, we saw creativity as something that happens in small ways and can be manifested in serious hobbies that contribute to active thinking as well as individual differences. We view it is a cognitive process that occurs across the life span and has important implications for aging. It is beneficial, even if it goes no further than the practice room.

Our commentators found these themes resonating with their personal experiences as well. We will start with an essay that examined her personal experience in light of the themes of our paper. McGovern’s (2025) commentary is self-reflective while relaying her own experience as an art therapist to her hobby of knitting. Her insights are very consistent with our emphases on the importance of both well-being as we age and the role little c plays in the form of hobbies and crafts. Thus, her personal odyssey and the meaning-making that it has provided serve as good examples of the themes of our paper. Stephenson (2025) follows up on these same themes also based on her observations from her work as an art therapist. She uses a case study of an older artist who does not typify stereotypes of older creative individuals to highlight the role of personal joy and emotional connection. As an aside, I (LM) have found this to be very true as I have struggled in my fiddle study. It may not always sound so pleasing to the ear, but my heart is happy to hear it. Stephenson further acknowledges research limitations on nurturing creativity but she also boldly asserts that creativity can be “crucial to radically rethinking aging – how we experience it, embrace it, and celebrate it (p. 3).” Nurturing creativity, or providing the appropriate learning conditions, is not well understood since it does not follow ostensibly established rules for instructional support. What is clear is that a nurturing environment that provides the structure for exploring novel solutions and the acceptance (and failure) of it is critical. Further, creative development takes time to develop and time spent thinking about it allows more novel solutions to emerge (Johns et al., 2001). Therefore, if we are to understand creativity and aging and its potential, a great deal more research is needed.

Hanna’s (2025) essay also focuses on the importance of rethinking how we view creativity and aging. She notes the “paradigm shift in our consideration of aging from a time of loss to a time of potential through creative expression both large and small (p. 1.)” She provides a good history of the expansion of interest in creativity and aging in the 1990s and early 2000s. One source of interest stemmed from Kivnick’s work with Erikson (Erikson et al., 1989), emphasizing active involvement in life and the search for meaning through the arts rather than reminiscence as the key to late life well-being. Cohen (2000, 2006) was very influential in researching and identifying the myriad benefits of creative activities for older adults, and in lobbying nationwide for creativity programs for older people. Cohen also was involved in the launch of the National Center for Creative Aging at George Washington University. The Center provided support and expertise for new arts programs.

Several of our commentators noted that a new vocabulary and resultant research is in order for looking at both creativity and aging. Tanggaard’s (2025) paper emphasizes that the need for a new understanding that shifts toward a more collectivist view within the context of the individual within society. This emphasis on better understanding the individual is highly consistent with our ideas. We feel that the individual and the context for creativity in cognition has been long neglected. Tanggaard’s work emphasizes materiality, the degree to which creativity is dependent on the interaction between the individual in his or her context and the materials being manipulated. I (CAP) am particularly inspired by how she places creativity in the context of the life-cycle, and the how she describes the cyclic nature of many ideas. Another idea presented by Tanggaard is the concept of “capturing ideas.” This is an intriguing concept highly relevant to hobbies and crafts. From my own experience, I (LM) have been totally amazed at the incredible volume of fiddle literature available (further complicated by tunes having multiple titles at times!). Many times, the start of a creative project begins with the initial connection with an idea or a tune heard as the idea is captured. From a cognitive perspective, this helps tie in with existing or prior knowledge, and networks of ideas waiting to spark an insight with the new information.

Tanggaard’s essay emphasized the importance of moving away from narrow definitions and toward incorporating time and place. Zheng and Kaufman (2025) noted the benefits of and meaning that creativity plays in one’s life saying leaving a meaningful legacy can be an important part of aging. Certainly a prized necklace could become a symbol of one’s legacy that tells a great deal about a person in the future long after they have passed away. In the same way, leaving one’s favorite fiddle to a cherished friend or relative tells the same story of legacy into the future. Many famous violins are distinguished by the list of owners over many decades who made great music playing them – and their subsequent values are often echoed through their owners both well-known or not.

Finally, several commentaries address the widened definition of creativity that we have discussed and make recommendations for research and practice questions to investigate. Lubart and Lubin (2025) discuss changes across the later years of life, recognizing that there are likely to be differences between 60-year-olds and adults over 80+, which should be reflected in the types of creative interventions offered to older adults. Their emphasis on adaptation as the key to well-being in very late life is strongly reminiscent of Baltes and Baltes (1993) theory of selective optimization with compensation. Skaggs and Novak-Leonard (2025) point out that cultural backgrounds may make it difficult for some older adults to imagine themselves as creative; interventions need to focus on creative media that are not always seen as “art,” and are closer to older adults’ longtime interests. Antonietti and Colautti (2025) emphasize individual differences in changes in the brain that can impact the types of creative interventions that are appropriate for older adults. For example, flexibility training may be especially helpful for older adults without substantial cognitive reserve. One art form they suggest would be useful for a range of older adults is story-telling. The story-telling training program they developed is designed to enhance meaning, perspective-taking, critical thinking, and cognitive flexibility.

All of these exceptional and thoughtful commentaries provide a rich forum for exploring the ideas which we have espoused in our article (Adams-Price & Morse, 2025). Each provides interesting and critical ideas and suggestions for expanding this work and offer support for widening the narrow focus of creativity across time as we age. The individual and the context are important whether it be within instruction, within society, or even just within the individual and what happens with that one life. Clearly, creativity plays an important role in later life and we have tried to promote the view that expanding these possibilities leads to a heathier and meaningful later life. We need to think creatively and wholistically about creativity and aging. Our hope is that in the future these possibilities will become clearer through more research and paradigm realignment. In a sense, the concept of reimagining creativity in everyday life in older adults will be one of our research “little legacies.” Thank you for the opportunity to begin this process with this forum.