"However, does the intelligence of Picasso, Dali or even Warhol play a significant part in their creativity?"

I think for these artists (and most modern artists) a good deal of the value of their work comes from having been particularly clever about what makes something art, and what people have already experienced and now expect. Van Gogh, on the other hand, probably did much less intellectualizing about his work.

But I'm still skeptical that you can have a keen eye for color and composition, and the selection of subject matter, and be dopey. Most so-called "naive" art, or "outsider art", tends to look cluttered and ill-planned. Often that effect is the appeal, but it stands in contrast to the spatial organization of work done by more culturally established artists.

I completely agree - think about many instances where kindergartners, many of whom barely know how to do arithmetic or spell, draw or paint something that is absolutely creative and amazing. Likewise, people with mental disorders exhibit many creative traits - if you listen to this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Johnston) talk, he doesn't sound extremely intelligent. His music and art, however, are incredibly creative.

I suppose the operative word there is significant and strong. I did not imply that you need genius level intelligence to be creative, what I implied is that not everyone can be creative as the article states and I gave my reasoning which is that seeing as most people, those of the normal IQ of 100, see the world in the same way, then their writing, designing, whatever skill is abundant and "normal". When however you move slightly up to the 115 level, you are just that little more different in at least one variable therefore your work is slightly less abundant hence a bit more creative. You may say that whoever has an above average IQ can and is creative, that is mainly due to intelligence because they do see the world differently from the 100 IQ guy, but to say that anyone can be creative, needs a redefinition of creativity.

I have not heard of one person with an IQ of 100 who has made some known creative work, or any person with the IQ of 100 who has become a prime minister, a lawyer, a doctor, or whatever else which demands creativity.

You see, one fallacy that this article makes, and those who suggest that intelligence is dead, is that they ignore the whole picture. Take two people who want to be lawyers, doctors, designers, psychologists, writers, painters, one of them has the IQ of 100, the other of 115. They work ten years to get to their desired position, at the end a panel of judges will decide which to take, who do you think will they pick?

The guy with the IQ of 100 might be considered superior to some other guy with the same IQ, yet even here this might not be so as the other guy might be superior in something else hence they really are equal. Not to mention that the guy with the IQ of 100 will have much more competition and there will be plenty like him chasing the same goal, hence the abundance of the work of that quality.

Yet the guy with the IQ of 115 is clearly superior as he probably has a better working memory, a better thinking capability to motivate himself, more insight, he probably reads widely to stimulate himself, is interested in things for their own sake, and also compared to the previous guy he has less competition and there are less people of his kind chasing what he is, hence less of his quality level work, so statistically he has more chance of making a creative work which is recognised of course and contributes significantly to the world.

I would be surprised if Picaso does not have an above average IQ. His work is highly creative and it does take some brain power to come up with something totally knew as one needs not only to understand how the old works, but to also transform this knowledge into something new.