Creative Search Trajectories and their Implications
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Kyle Jennings: Creative Search Trajectories and their Implications. In: Computational Creativity 2012 ICCC 2012, 49-56.
DOI
Abstract
Creative search trajectories are chronologically orga- nized intermediate products (such as sketches and drafts) from the creative process. We discuss what sorts of conclusions can be made when these trajecto- ries show non-monotonic progress toward the final cre- ation. We introduce several key distinctions that are of- ten overlooked, and argue that two null hypothesis pro- cesses must be rejected before non-monotonicity can be claimed to support more complex processes. We show that these null hypotheses are in fact difficult to rule out definitively using the sorts of evidence that past research has offered.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
@inproceedings{
author = {Kyle Jennings},
title = {Creative Search Trajectories and their Implications},
editor = {Mary Lou Maher, Kristian Hammond, Alison Pease, Rafael Pérez y Pérez, Dan Ventura and Geraint Wiggins},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Creativity},
series = {ICCC2012},
year = {2012},
month = {May},
location = {Dublin, Ireland},
pages = {49-56},
url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/049-Jennings.pdf, http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=Creative_Search_Trajectories_and_their_Implications },
publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity},
keywords = {computational, creativity},
}
Used References
Anderson, J. R. 1993. Problem solving and learning. Amer- ican Psychologist 48(1):35–44.
Damian, R. I., and Simonton, D. K. 2011. From past to future art: The creative impact of Picasso’s 1935 Minotau- romachy on his 1937 Guernica. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0023017.
Dasgupta, S. 2011. Contesting (Simonton’s) blind variation, selective retention theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 23(2):166–182.
Finke, R. A.; Ward, T. B.; and Smith, S. M. 1992. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gabora, L. 2011. An analysis of the blind variation and selective retention (BVSR) theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 23(2):155–165.
Getzels, J. W., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1976. The Cre- ative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hennessey, B. A. 1994. The consensual assessment tech- nique: An examination of the relationship between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Jour- nal 7(2):193–208.
Jennings, K. E.; Simonton, D. K.; and Palmer, S. E. 2011. Understanding exploratory creativity in a visual domain. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition.
Jennings, K. E. 2010a. Developing creativity: Artificial bar- riers in artificial intelligence. Minds and Machines 20:489– 501.
Jennings, K. E. 2010b. Search strategies and the creative process. In First International Conference on Computa- tional Creativity, 130–139.
Kozbelt, A., and Serafin, J. 2009. Dynamic evaluation of high- and low-creativity drawings by artist and nonartist raters. Creativity Research Journal 21(4):349–360.
Kozbelt, A. 2006. Dynamic evaluation of Matisse’s 1935 Large Reclining Nude. Empirical Studies of the Arts 24(2).
Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. 1961. GPS, a program that simulates human thought. In Billing, H., ed., Lernende au- tomaten. Munchen: R. Oldengourg. 109–124.
Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. 1972. Human problem solv- ing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Perkins, D. 2000. The Eureka Effect: The Art and Logic of Breakthrough Thinking. New York: W. W. Norton.
Rostan, S. M. 2010. Studio learning: Motivation, compe- tence, and the development of young art students’ talent and creativity. Creativity Research Journal 22(3):261–271. Ruscio, J.; Whitney, D. M.; and Amabile, T. M. 1998.
Looking inside the fishbowl of creativity: Verbal and behav- ioral predictors of creative performance. Creativity Research Journal 11(3):243–263.
Simonton, D. K. 1999. Origins of genius. New York: Ox- ford.
Simonton, D. K. 2003. Scientific creativity as con- strained stochastic behavior: The integration of the prod- uct, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bul- letin 129(4):475–494.
Simonton, D. K. 2007. The creative imagination in Picasso’s Guernica: Monotonic improvements or nonmonotonic vari- ants? Creativity Research Journal 19:329–344.
Simonton, D. K. 2010. Creativity as blind-variation and selective-retention: Constrained combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews 7:156–179.
Simonton, D. K. 2011. Creativity and discovery as blind variation and selective retention: Multiple-variant defini- tion and blind-sighted integration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 5(3):222–228.
Simonton, D. K. 2012. Creativity, problem solving, and so- lution set sightedness: Radically reformulating BVSR. Jour- nal of Creative Behavior 46(1):48–65.
Tversky, A. 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84(4):327–352.
Weisberg, R. W. 2004. On structure in the creative pro- cess: A quantitative case-study of the creation of Picasso’s Guernica. Empirical Studies of the Arts 22(1):23–54.
Links
Full Text
http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/049-Jennings.pdf
