Creativity, in particular the incubation period, is not all a mechanistic activity. However, its underlying microstructure may be mechanistic, and thus usefully investigated by reductive analysis and mechanistic assumptions. Humanists have neglected and artists showed indifference to study creativity. An integrated multidimensional “artistocentric” model consisting of the psychological scientists, the neuroscientists, the humanists (including the supernaturalists’ claims), and the artists' experiences, is suggested. This integration might facilitate a deeper understanding of the process and nature of creativity and the incubation stage. A 40-minute Tangram puzzle making (main task) was given to participants of this study (artists: n = 32, and non-artists: n = 31). They were asked to solve each puzzle for 10 minutes. If they did not succeed at the first 4 minutes, they were stopped and were either given 2 minutes to break (incubation) doing distractor or contemplate before returning to the main task for another 4 minutes. The question was whether artistic incubation is the same as cognitive problem-solving; and whether using the distractor tasks vs. contemplation facilitate artistic creativity. The findings highlighted the role of distractor in the “incubation” period, vs. contemplation to solve Tangram puzzle in both groups. Although, artists showed that after having incubation period (using distractor) more success in solving the puzzle than non-artists. However, the results indicated that incubation in the creative act might differ from incubation as cognitive problem-solving. Further studies in creativity and the incubation phase should aim to benefit from a new integrated model merging the psychological sciences, human sciences, and artists’ experiences.

Key words: Psychological Sciences, Humanities, Artistic Creativity, Incubation, Artists’ experiences, Neuroaesthetics, Psychoanalysis, Neuropsychoanalysis.