Assignment6PEdwardsJLillyJWisnesky

Assignment6PEdwardsJLillyJWisnesky

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

Pierce Edwards, Joe Lilly, Jacob Wisnesky

2. Task 1

Jacob's Response:

I think the claim that any idea that's "creative" arises from a group of sources and not a single person is a bit overgeneralized. I do believe that the synergy of many sources is often greatly beneficial to creative ideas, however, to say that an idea MUST be the result of a group of sources to be creative is going too far. I'm sure that at some point in the past several thousand years, there's been at least 1 person that's come up with a creative idea on his own.

I think it's fairly well accepted that creativity can be enhanced when people work together. However, as with all things, there are always exceptions. Sometimes, people with good ideas (especially if they're a little "out there") can be afraid to put them forth if they're going to receive group scrutiny. Similarly, groups sometimes can shoot down good/creative ideas if they don't recognize the merit being them. People sometimes act/think differently in groups. People can succumb to pressure. In some environments, not all members/sources contribute equally. If there's 3 guys sitting around and 1 coming up with brilliant ideas, I'd still consider that as a one-man show. Despite all this, however, I would say that creativity can be greatly enhanced when a group of equally contributing individuals work together. (I'm aware that "sources" includes things other than people, but I think that people are probably the "best" source besides one's own mind.)

Unfortunately, I don't really have any major achievements or creativity to reflect upon. My undergraduate cirriculum has been mostly solo work, and mostly uninteresting. Pretty much everything at this point has been simple "go through the motions." Originality and creativity has not been necessary thus far (indeed, in some cases not even encouraged.)

This may sound cliche, but...this course is a great example of a system that "changes the environment" to enhance creativity. The class is very unorthodox compared to a usual lecture. The interactivity and participation really pushes people to think for themselves and be creative rather than relying solely on someone else's creativity. At the same time, it also lets people share their creativity to help and inspire others in their own pursuit of ideas.

I think the main feature AND requirement for systems that change the environment is collaboration. Creativity may come from many sources, but people are almost always the best source. When a lot of quality minds work together, it's easily possible to create ideas that exceed the sum of all the individual ideas. In that regard, the ability to communicate and collaborate is without a doubt the best feature and biggest requirement for systems that "change the environment."

Pierce's Response: I would agree in the general sense that creativity is not the act of a single mind but the gestalt of many different ideas. There's an old saying that there are no original stories but that they are just retellings and mishmashes of existing tales. Well the same could be said of ideas. It is impossible to approach any problem #bubblec('tabula rosa', "Be careful when you use uncommon/unusual expressions. It is not a pink table but a blank table :) (tabula rasa not rosa). Also, I think it should be starting from a tabula rasa"). Further, thought processes and ideas could be thought of as mathematical theorems. Carefully constructed to solve a given problem, but all built out of axioms and postulates. These represent the ideas that are already taught. So no thought is really created without preceding thoughts and those can go back for generations of teaching and communication. That is not to deny the creative process of an individual. For if all problems were solvable by inherited and intimated knowledge, then they would have been dealt with long ago. But the spark and framework which allows for any real and useful creativity is taught. If such things were GPL'd, a creative thought or idea would be a derivative product. Something new and useful but with a lineage of other peoples thoughts and ideas as well.

Similarly, creativity can only thrive in an environment that is unpredictable. If the world were perfectly predictable then there would be no need for dynamic, unique thoughts and ideas. There'd instead be an ideal and solvable solution for every dilemma. Borrowing again from cliché and proverb, "necessity is the mother of invention." Without a challenge of some sort, there is no need for creativity and challenge only exists in unfamiliar situations. Which is to say that changing the environment is the only real way to foster dynamic thought.

In video games, playing against other people is far more rewarding than defeating AI characters. Part of that is psychological competition, but the biggest factor right now is division between predictable play and unpredictable play. When it all comes down to it, an AI will follow predefined, scripted rules with perhaps some random probability added for realism. The difference is significant. It is more challenging and rewarding because it forces creative thought. In many ways what is fun is also what is creative. People get bored doing the same thing over and over again. Even if say, camping on an objective is the most effective play strategy, a human player will try something different. Naturally seeking a change in environment.

3. Task 2

Jacob's Response:

EDC: This may sound superficial, but I found it interesting that simple little LEGO-like things (it looks like there are some in Figure 5) can be used to help solve complex problems without optimal solutions - it certainly gives new perspective. I didn't think anything was uninteresting or missing.

Caretta: I found the differences between this and EDC to be interesting; in particular, how similar environments and similar problems can be used to cultivate different learning and creativity. Nothing was particularly uninteresting or missing.

Renga Creations: I actually didn't find anything about this particularly interesting. I think it was uninteresting because it doesn't seem like the environment really does anything in the sense that it's not really solving problems or providing insight beyond letting people collaborate on art.

CodeBroker: I found CodeBroker interesting because it's actually focused at solving an actual problem: helping people not re-invent the wheel. As for something "missing" about CodeBroker, I'd like to see some data about just how effective it is at successfully facilitating code reuse.

Pierce's Response:

EDC: EDC is an interesting concept that addresses many of the problems with in the box thinking. It was missing some specific examples of it's use in solving problems.

Caretta: Caretta is intriguing as an extension of the concept put forth by EDC. Being able to have individual workspaces than can then be shared is a massive advantage. There was nothing uninteresting or missing from what I could see.

Renga Creations: Renga seems interesting on paper, with the idea of evolving images. There concept of seeding to bring more interesting results has its merits. I would have liked some more information on the process. The results also seem to be a bit haphazard so maybe some more examples would have helped.

CodeBroker: In concept it is a very interesting idea. Being able to determine what similar implementations might apply to the task at hand is a great idea and would prove extremely useful. The added connectivity is also very appealing. It could use some more information on the effectiveness and level of intrusiveness it has.

Ack, theres a bug with editing and FF3.... I'll just put my responses down here (feel free to copy it back up into the body of the form anyone):

Joe's response:

T1:

I agree that creativity does not stem from isolation of a single person, and this "synergy" that is mentioned can also be called "traction." Traction is simply the idea that certain constraints help enable the creative process. For example, when an artist paints a picture, they have already put in place an constraint for traction -- the medium they are going to use. Traction can be things like medium and presentation, or it can be silly things like using rubber bands. Thus, this traction contributes to the idea that creativity is from a variety of sources.

Also, no man is an island. Most of us have grown up around some group of people. These interactions help us form our creative process.

In my own experience of being a musician, creativity is not something that only happens when I'm alone in a practice room. Yes, there I can create while I'm in there, but generally its a different kind of creativity. I can compose or refine ideas on my own, but while I'm with a group of musicians, then I tend to improvise. The argument definitely applies to my personal experiences.

Changing the landscape in order to facilitate the creative process goes back to the idea of traction. Some people just have a hard time being "creative" when asked to be. This does not mean that they are not creative, I believe that most of the time it is the that the person is unconfortable in that context and therefore does not preform well.

A common situation for people's creativity is the classroom. When asked to do assignments, it is then up to the student to create them. The interaction with the environment (teachers, classmates, etc) will change how the students do their assignments.

T2:

EDC seemed fairly boring and more of a technical solution to the group creative process -- the front end (UI) was fairly unimpressive and bulky, while the back end demonstrated the necessary technology to solve these kinds of problems.

Caretta looked more like what the EDC could become. I found the physical tokens to be of particular interest.

Renga Creation was an interesting idea that was manily focused on image manipulation. I found the interaction between artist (or work of art) and viewer to be an interesting interaction that has not been exploited by too many other forms of art.

CodeBroker I found to be mostly uninteresting, as many of its claims are slowly being integrated into the coding process anyways. Google's code search is one thing that comes to mind.