Assignment6HauckOrinPitts

Assignment6HauckOrinPitts

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

Mason Hauck, Amanda Orin, Stephanie Pitts

2. Task 1

cre·a·tive (krē-ā'tĭv) adj.

1. Having the ability or power to create: Human beings are creative animals.

This definition, from the American Heritage dictionary, is the basic outline over which this group will attempt to dissect the above statement. The paper "Beyond Binary Choices: Integrating Individual and Social Creativity" begs the question of how creativity is defined among human beings. However, we believe that creativity is fostered within a single person. It is not incorrect that great creative works can be taken on and achieved by groups of people, but to limit human creativity to collaboration is to greatly underestimate the power of the individual.

The statement that "Human beings are creative animals" says it all. Humans, together or singularly are creative beings. It is impossible to have a human without having something creative. The ways we innovate how to get to school or to work, or how to manage time. These in and of themselves are creative tasks.

The paper does not directly critique individual creativity but it does say that something cannot be "creative" unless socially validated. We believe this to be a very limiting definition. In terms of computer science, this definition may be true. It is difficult to have a successful program that is socially applicable without it being socially validated, however, a programmer who hacks out something to achieve a task they previously had to do in some other way is still creatively interacting with his own world. This is true even if he or she does not share this snippet of code with anyone.

We do agree that collaboration can have monumental effects on the process of creating something. It is hardly ever negative to have more than one mind working how to solve a particular problem. However, what is missing in this argument is that creativity should not be limited to a social spectrum. A large amount of human creativity is done by the individual for the individual. This doesn't mean they are being less creative, simply that they are preforming an activity for their own benefit. Often times it is the creative innovations of one which enable a group to move forward.

For example, the theory of relativity was developed by Albert Einstein. Undoubtedly, he had been educated at some point, and he had social interaction, but overall the development of the theory was his own. This creative thinking, and resulting theory changed the face of modern physics and it came from the mind of a singular human being. Granted, what came from physicists after and the interactions between them; what came from applying the theory; what came from scientific publishings and the minds of scientists working together afterwards has been more, but without the creativity and without the thinking of one man none of it would have been possible. The fact that one man is credited with the discovery is in and of itself enough to show the point that great and significant things can come out of the creativity of one person.

Another example is Marcel Duchamp, the artist that inspired the Dadaist movement in modern art history, with is piece, Fountain (for those who have never seen this, it is, in fact, merely a urinal placed upon its side with a signature upon it). Duchamp created this piece with the intent/idea that art is not the physical object(s) that an individual places on display, but rather the meaning behind what is displayed, as the object(s) itself is merely posed as a gateway of sorts between the observation and the idea - a piece of artwork is intended to invoke the viewer into asking "what was the artist trying to convey or communicate to the viewer with this piece?". Duchamp is considered to be creative, as an individual, without the necessity of social enabling of the label "creative". Without this original idea of creativity on the part of an individual, we would never have had such a collaborative response to an individual idea of creativity within modern art history.

The point to be made then, is that social creativity is not stifling in any way. It can in fact make bigger things happen in many cases than can one individual. The individual is however the basis for any creative endeavor. A group can extend ideas, it can bring together theorems and practices and use them in new and different ways, but without the individuals and without the one there is nothing that the group can bring together. The creativity of each person in a group as a member spots a connection and another adds to it is the process by which big ideas can take hold. The individual in this cannot be undermined.

As for changing an environment vs. trying to get people to think more creatively: we believe that these two ideas can go hand in hand. Changing an environment can inspire people to be more creative by enabling them to do things that they were unable to conceive before. Technology can play a very large role in this.

For example, a graphics design environment which allows someone who would have previously gone to a "Signs 'R Us" store to get a banner or menu sign for the inside of their business can now use the environment to create something that is meaningful to their specific task without a middle man. Also, we believe the internet as a tool has completely changed the environment in which people can research projects an extend ideas. At our fingertips we have any information we could need and we can expound upon topic of which we had little knowledge in minutes and at the click of a button.

In this way, changing an environment does in fact enhance creativity. Enabling people to quickly and easily make their ideas reality via a medium such as technology is a viable and direct way to enhance the creative process.

Resources:

creative. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 05, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

3. Task 2

*Envisionment and Discovery Collaboratory

The use of a shared device space rather than a number of individual devices that are networked together encourages collaboration and discussion of justifications for ideas.

It is mentioned that use of the EDC has a degree of reliance on high-tech scribes, but any powerful and flexible technological tool will require a degree of knowledge to operate, this aspect can be mitigated to some degree but never eliminated.

*Caretta

The use of individual devices along with a shared device encourages not only collaboration, but provides tools to enhance individual creativity which can then be brought to the group.

This collaboration is only in the proof of concept phase, so while effective means of transition between individual and group work are mentioned, they are not designed or tested.

*Renga Creations

This system provides a new and unique artistic avenue through its hybridization of multiple images which relies directly on the creativity of all participants.

The software that combines the images has no mechanism for retaining an overarching theme or structure to a piece therefore the resulting art can be muted and conflicted.

*CodeBroker

This collaborative forum greatly increases the capability of developers by allowing various pieces of code to be reused, combined, and added to in innumerable ways.

Lacks mechanisms to encourage face to face discussion which can in many cases create insight that individual developers would not reach on their own.