A6PorterTaschdijan

A6PorterTaschdijan

To Do

• please work as a group (minimum: 2 members; max: 6 members) and submit one answer as a group (clearly identifying the members of your group)
• read Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005) "Beyond Binary Choices: Integrating Individual and Social Creativity," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (IJHCS) Special Issue on Computer Support for Creativity (E.A. Edmonds & L. Candy, Eds.), 63(4-5), pp. 482-512.

Task 1

Critically evaluate the following two claims based on the arguments in the reading assignment (the claims are from: Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996) Creativity - Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY):

• "An idea or product that deserves the label 'creative' arises from the synergy of many sources and not only from the mind of a single person."
  • to do: comment whether this argument is valid? can you think of exceptions?
  • to do: reflect on your own creativity (or major achievements)- does the argument apply to them?
• "It is easier to enhance creativity by changing conditions in the environment than by trying to make people think more creatively."
  • to do: provide examples and analyze features/requirements of systems which "change the environment" to enhance creativity.

Task 2

Section 4 of the Paper lists four "Examples of Environments That Support Creativity"; for each four examples, say in one sentence

• what you found interesting and
• uninteresting or missing

Group response

1. Members of the Group

Amanda Porter and Zac Taschdijan

2. Task 1

"It is easier to enhance creativity by changing conditions in the environment than by trying to make people think more creatively"

Amanda: After reading the Fisher et al. (2005) article on social creativity, I would evaluate this statement by suggesting that changes in the environment or trying to make people think more creatively is not a "versus" relationship, but rather an "and" type of relationship. That is, the environment and thinking creatively are inextricably linked and because of that, it is not useful to say that one is somehow easier than the other. Rather, a better perspective would be to recognize the multiple ways in which the environment and individual creativity interact and to try to capitalize on those moments when one comes to the forefront as especially important. This is linked to Fisher et al.'s main argument that the social is about the individual's involved while being an individual is also entirely social. In this sense, the "right" environment can certainly spawn creativity, but people thinking creatively as a result of that environment also has the potential to effect the environment itself. I would point to Structuration Theory by Anthony Giddens to develop this statement further; we act upon structures (technologies) in the environment in order to gain the capacity to act, yet in acting, we have the power to fundamentally change those very same structures as we use them in action.

Zac: Creativity is an interesting phenomenon both in it's own right and because it applies to and crosses the boundaries of many disciplines. As a human universal, it has been examined from many different analytical perspectives. In my limited reading of academic studies of creativity, it seems to be approached primarily from the perspective of the individual and only more recently from the group.

One interesting approach to group and individual creativity is the theory of auteurship borrowed from the discipline of film studies. The Auteurship theory holds that films are the personal creative vision of a single person, usually the director, sometimes a producer. In this theory, the cast, crew, editors and other workers are simply assisting this "creative" person in reifying their creative vision. From the perspective of someone who has worked in the film industry, auteurship is demeaning and insulting. Part of the reward for those who work in the film industry is the feeling of contributing to a creative product. Of course, the impact of a single author on a collaboratively created product is debatable; some directors also write their own screenplays, edit and do a majority of the work. In such a case, it makes sense that they should be labeled the creative force. However, it is laughable to think that a single author deserves the majority of the creative credit in today's film industry. The amount of work needed to complete such a project requires the creative collaboration of a large crew and cast as well as the author and director.

To address the question directly, it seems like there are two ways to approach it; 1) creativity is always the result of more than one individual because the elements that make one creative (background, genetics, environment, etc.) are influenced by others. In other words that there is no such thing as true originality; we are simply a lens refracting our upbringing, environment and ultimately those around us. 2) creativity is an act of individual perception; a cognitive feat stemming from a unique personal view of the world. I believe that creativity is probably a combination of these things and can also be achieved in groups.

Two of my favorite writers on the subject are Lakoff and Johnson in their book Metaphors We Live By (1980). Their basic premise is that our language and specifically our metaphors lay the conceptual framework for how we view the world. For example, the underlying metaphor for argument in Western cultures is warfare. We "win" or "lose" an argument. They raise the interesting concept of thinking of argument using the metaphor of dance. In my own creative experiences, I strive to develop new metaphors and view concepts in light of this.

Another interesting work on this subject is Donald Schon's Displacement of Concepts (1963). Schon proposes that, similar to the principles of Gestalt psychology, creativity is "simply" a matter of recognizing and being open to novelty. "The extremes of creativity lead to madness - not only inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, but inability to form structures that could be the basis for a perception of reality at all." (ibid. pg. 98)

3. Task 2

EDC: What I found most interesting about this particular environment was the influence of the meta-design perspective and the mechanisms to allow participants to inject content into simulations and adapt to new scenarios. I think this is critical for this type of environment where imagining the future is the principle activity at stake. In general, I find those concepts related to specific types of communication are missing from this section. I would like to see the term "shared interaction" become more explicit. What does this mean? What types of communication enable or constrain this "shared interaction"? How does that communication relate to the material artifact?

Caretta: I was most interested in the "intuitive transition" between the individual and shared spaces of this system. This really seems to retain diversity while also allowing negotiations with other users. I would like to see more, however, about how this sensemaking process could be supported in interaction that was not co-located.

Renga Creations: What strikes me most about this particular environment is the ability to "transcend" on multiple levels: from access to active participation, from autonomous minds to distributed cognition and finally, from individual to social creativity. I would like to see more on how this process maps onto concepts of "dialogue" which was mentioned briefly in the article.

CodeBroker: I found the concept of "reuse" the most interesting in this project. It seems to be a unique process to the OSS environment. More development of the specific process of the various types of reuse would be helpful to begin to understand why cross-system reuse and cross-domain reuse are so difficult and rare.