Tag: creativity

Towards a personal theory of creativity

Towards a personal theory of creativity

A continuation from my last post.

Creative activity is […] what makes man a creature focused on the future, capable of shaping it and changing his current situation.[1]

In 2012, Mark Runco and Garrett Jaeger wrote a piece for the Creativity Research Journal entitled “The Standard Definition of Creativity”.[2] In it, they review historical and contemporary accounts of creativity and support a definition that requires two criteria for defining creativity: originality and usefulness. They also acknowledge that many (including Margaret Boden, who I referred to in my last post) require surprise as a third criterion.

In my previous post, I expressed scepticism over this inclusion of “value” as a criterion, as it focusses attention on the product of creativity, rather than the process. When I examine creativity, I am interested in the process both in individual creativity and group creativity.

A brief overview of creativity research

I have found support for this in an article from 2015 where Robert Weisberg quite thoroughly debunks the argument for using “value” as a criterion.[3] He does this by showing how value judgements have changed over time, thus leading to absurd conclusions such as Van Gogh not being creative during his lifetime as his art was not valued by the accepted gatekeepers of the day but subsequently “became” creative after death.

Weisberg goes on to argue for using «intentional novelty» as a measure for creativity. It is an improvement over the standard definition, but still looks primarily at the product. When he writes about «novelty», he is clear that this is about measuring the novelty of the results of a creative process and using this as a way of measuring whether or not it is a result of creativity.

An article that takes issue with the standard definition for the same reasons I do — the traditional emphasis on product or result rather than process — is «Creative Experience: A Non-standard Definition of Creativity» by Vlad Glăveanua and Ronald Beghetto.[4] In it, they define 4 necessary criteria for creativity (although they open up for others as well):

  • Open-endedness,
  • Non-linearity,
  • Pluri-perspectival, and
  • Future-orientation.

A very useful take on creativity is from Chetan Walia, in the article “A Dynamic Definition of Creativity”.[5] Walia starts with a very good overview over the different definitions and discussions around creativity from the past several decades. He identifies “…three distinctive dynamics at play: creativity, creation, and creator.” [emphasis in original] and goes on to show how the so-called standard definition, with it’s emphasis on novelty and usefulness, applies to only one of those: the creation.

Walia elaborates on this further:

Herein lies the problem in studying creativity as synonymous with creation, because creation can be judged only when it has concluded, whereas creativity is active throughout the process and may not even end after having led to creation. (p. 239)

He further breaks creativity into 4 elements:

  1. It is an act that brings forth something new. Here he refers to several researchers’ findings that creativity involves both action and that it (as implied by the name) leads to the creation of something.
  2. It is a production, not a reproduction. In other words, the creation is new and unique, and not a copy of something that already exists.[6]
  3. It acknowledges a disequilibrium; in other words there must be some challenge or incentive that calls for a creative solution.
  4. It is about sensitivity in perceiving a problem. For many (and here Walia cites Csikszentmihalyi), the origin of the creative act lies in identifying a problem that needs a solution.

He also specifies that creativity is an ongoing act, independent of the creation. From this, he arrives at what he calls a “dynamic definition of creativity”:

Creativity is an act arising out of a perception of the environment that acknowledges a certain disequilibrium, resulting in productive activity that challenges patterned thought processes and norms, and gives rise to something new in the form of a physical object or even a mental or an emotional construct. (p. 242)

It is also worth looking at Vygotsky; while he is better known for his work on child psychology and learning, leading to social constructivist learning theories, he wrote The Psychology of Art (1930 / trans. 1971) early in his career. In an article first published (in English) in 2004, he writes, “It is precisely human creative activity that makes the human being a creature oriented toward the future, creating the future and thus altering his own present.”[7] In this article, he also emphasizes the crucial part played by imagination: “…imagination, as the basis of all creative activity, is an important component of absolutely all aspects of cultural life, enabling artistic, scientific, and technical creation alike.”

Vygotsky goes on to highlight the social aspect of creativity, and point out that human development owes its existence to tiny individual acts of creativity and creations that combine to become crucial for society, innovation, and art. He also relates that imagination and creativity are a necessary condition for existence. He places imagination at the centre of creativity, and points out that imagination primarily consists of recombining in new ways the products of our past experience and is thus inseparable from reality. This process also requires emotion, which becomes the motor for both selecting elements to combine and for interpreting the products of imagination: “Feeling as well as thought drives human creativity” (p. 21).

Putting the parts together

Where does all this lead me in my attempt to define creativity? After all, being responsible for educational programmes in the art means that we are, by definition, preoccupied with creativity. We are teaching people, if not to become creative, then at the very least to develop their own creativity.

First, I think it’s key for me to understand that in the triad creator — creativity — creation, it’s the middle one — creativity — that interests me in this context. I think it’s also a useful place to focus on in education. The individual, or, in this context, creator, must in large part be responsible for themselves. As an educational programme, we need to provide a stimulating and supportive environment, but I am a firm believer in the necessity of intrinsic motivation for learning and development. The question of whether one can educate people to be creative is not uncontroversial, but I think in this case Berys Gaut makes a good case for education in his essay “Educating for Creativity”,[8] and in many ways becoming a creator involves being motivated to become a creator and to do the work — because learning is hard work — to develop yourself.

As for the creation, this is less interesting to me as an educator. We live in a society where we are judged by results on a daily basis in most parts of our lives. I believe this is often detrimental to learning, and perhaps especially in fields where discovery and creativity are key. By focussing on the process — creativity — we can provide our students with the space and encouragement to expand their own creative horizons, to learn to examine their experiences and knowledge and how to use this as raw material in their creations, and the freedom to test and experiment knowing they will not be judged based on the success or failure of their artistic result.

And so where does this leave my definition? Or, as the title of this blog post indicates, my personal theory of creativity? I think that in the end, creativity can be explained through 4 elements:

  • Original stimulus
  • Intention
  • Novelty or originality
  • Action

Original stimulus

There needs to be something that begs the question; something that calls for a solution. This can be an internal drive brought about through some dissatisfaction with the world as it is. It can be a practical obstacle or problem that needs to be overcome. It can be a scientific, logistical, or aesthetic puzzle that needs solving.

In short, what in traditional film dramaturgy is called the “inciting incident“.

Intention

Given that there needs to be some stimulus for creativity to arise, another key element is intention — someone (or group of someones) needs to consciously decide to address this stimulus. From what I can see, and what I have read, the fact that it is a conscious intent is key. While it might be possible to produce a creative result through serendipity, a creative process requires both will and intent in order to exist.

John Dewey writes about this in Art as Experience[9] when he states,

Because interest is the dynamic force in selection and assemblage of materials, products of mind are marked by individuality, just as products of mechanism are marked by uniformity. No amount of technical skill and craftsmanship can take the place of vital interest; “inspiration” without it is fleeting and futile. A trivial and badly ordered mind accomplishes things like unto itself in art as well as elsewhere, for it lacks the push and centralizing energy of interest. Works of art are measured by display of virtuosity when criteria are carried over from the field of technical invention. (p. 266)

Novelty, or originality

I suppose I also could have called this “imagination”. Regardless, the key here is the ability to create with the intention of it being new or original. This does not mean conjuring something from nothing, but looking at the world, searching through ones own experience and finding elements that can be used and combined in new and innovative ways.

Vygotsky (cited above) wrote about this. Dewey also points out the central place of imagination in combination with experience when he writes about imagination:

It is the large and generous blending of interests at the point where the mind comes in contact with the world. When old and familiar things are made new in experience, there is imagination. When the new is created, the far and strange become the most natural inevitable things in the world. There is always some measure of adventure in the meeting of mind and universe, and this adventure is, in its measure, imagination. (p. 267)

and,

[… W]hile the roots of every experience are found in the interaction of a live creature with its environment, that experience becomes conscious, a matter of perception, only when meanings enter it that are derived from prior experiences. Imagination is the only gateway through which these meanings can find their way into a present interaction; or rather, as we have just seen, the conscious adjustment of the new and the old is imagination. (p. 272)

Action

A fourth element of creativity is action. Creativity does not just happen, but must be driven forward. This is closely related to the intent point above, but while intent signals a conscious decision to do something, the action point is the actual doing. They must go together for a creative process to occur.

These four elements are not a linear process. Creativity, like life itself, is messy and full of stops and starts. The elements may all occur simultaneously or they may exist in different combinations at different times. Even the “original stimulus” does not need to be a one-time occurrence, but may recur several times during a creative process.

Footnotes

  1. Vygotsky, L.S. Imagination and Creativity in Childhood (1995), quoted in Lindqvist, Gunilla. ‘Vygotsky’s Theory of Creativity’. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 15, no. 2/3, Apr. 2003, p. 245. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651416.
  2. Runco, Mark A., and Garrett J. Jaeger. ‘The Standard Definition of Creativity’. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 92–96. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.
  3. Weisberg, Robert W. ‘On the Usefulness of “Value” in the Definition of Creativity’. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 27, no. 2, Apr. 2015, pp. 111–24. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1030320.
  4. Glăveanu, Vlad P., and Ronald A. Beghetto. ‘Creative Experience: A Non-Standard Definition of Creativity’. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, Apr. 2021, pp. 75–80. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1827606.
  5. Walia, Chetan. ‘A Dynamic Definition of Creativity’. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 31, no. 3, July 2019, pp. 237–47. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1641787.
  6. Although, this begs the question: is there no time when a reproduction can be a work of creativity? Take Gus Van Sant’s shot-by-shot remake of Psycho, for example. While more an experiment than a successful film, is it not also a product of creativity…?
  7. Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich. ‘Imagination and Creativity in Childhood’. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, vol. 42, no. 1, Feb. 2004, pp. 7–97. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2004.11059210.
  8. Gaut, Berys. ‘Educating for Creativity’. The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays, edited by Elliot Samuel Paul and Scott Barry Kaufman, Oxford University Press, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.001.0001.
  9. Dewey, John. Art As Experience. 23rd edn, Perigee Books, 1980 (1934).

Thinking out loud — what is creativity?

I’m currently reading Margaret Bodens Creativity & Art. As a series of essays on creativity, it’s a worthwhile read, but it also leads me to wonder whether the definition of creativity she proposes — and I’ve come across many places — is sufficient.

In the Introduction, she recounts her definition. “Creativity in general is the generation of novel, surprising, and valuable ideas.” Her definition of “ideas” is broad enough to encompass works of art (among other things). She describes her definition as “threefold”, as she identifies three forms of surprise: the combinatorial form of surprise, the exploratory form of surprise, and the transformational form of surprise. I won’t go into further detail here, but it seems useful to analyse creativity in this way.

The question of novelty is an interesting one; Boden does differentiate between psychological (or individual) novelty — it’s new to the individual with the creative idea — and historical creativity — it’s a new idea in all of history. Both are valid ways of identifying something as novel. These two forms of novelty are also referred to in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on Creativity and Scientific Discovery.

For myself, I wonder if there is something missing there. While the SEP entry on Creativity does mention other possible forms of novelty, there does not seem to be any discussion of social novelty — when something may not be historically new but is new to the society in which it reappears.

The other issue I see with this definition is that it tends to emphasize product over process. I would contend that creativity is a process, first and foremost, and that a creative process may or may not lead to a creative product, result, or, indeed, work of art. A failed process can still be creative; the result of a creative person engaging in an act of creativity.

I am also sceptical of the inclusion of “value” as a requirement for considering something creative. It seems to me that value is far too subjective, and risks inviting a very instrumental and quantitative way of judging creativity. While Boden and others who argue for value as a criterion do take pains to specify that value also can exist at the individual level, it still seems to emphasize the external, the product, rather than what I would argue is the true subject of creativity; the embodied and enactive process.

Perhaps part of my scepticism originates with the fact that Boden is often associated with a computational theory of mind. My sense is computationalism can be a useful metaphor for many mental processes, it appears too simplistic to encompass the full scope of human (or, indeed, animal) cognition seen through a 4E lens. Our minds, bodies, actions, and social interactions are simply too complex to be explained through a computational metaphor — unless the power of computation is extended so far beyond the capabilities of any theorized computer system that the metaphor loses its grounding.

Here the SEP entry provides alternatives that I will be exploring more closely, when the authors state that creativity entails that “a product must arise from a certain kind of process—a process that exhibits surprise, originality, spontaneity, or agency—in order to count as creative.” This combination of factors feels better to me, but it still places too much emphasis on the product for my liking. Regardless, the SEP bibliography has led me to the writings of Maria Kronfeldner on this topic, and I will be delving more into her writings — starting with Creativity Naturalized.

Another philosopher mentioned in SEP is Berys Gaut, who, among other things, writes about if and how creativity can be learned. Unfortunately, my university library does not have access to his book chapter “Educating for Creativity” from 2014, but there are other papers of his that seem relevant to my research on this. Key to Gaut’s arguments, according to SEP, is,

Creativity is a disposition—involving both the ability and the motivation—to produce things that are new and valuable, and to do so in ways that express one’s agency through “the exercise of choice, evaluation, understanding, and judgment”. (link)

This is much closer to an understanding of creativity that I can work with. My take is filtered through a 4E cognition lens, and so words like “ability” and “motivation” lead me to think in terms of embodied and enactive (I’m not sure if that was what Gaut was thinking, but no matter). If I consider that creativity must first and foremost involve action; action which originates as a solution to a problem or hurdle faced by the creative individual — or group! That this action thus involves motivation to move forward in order to achieve something new.

Furthermore, I am very much in alignment with the emphasis on “choice, evaluation, understanding, and judgment.” Creativity does not exist without intention, and choice, evaluation, understanding, and judgment all support intention. (For what it’s worth, this is also why I cannot accept that artificial intelligence can be creative — AI has no intention of its own; only that which is programmed into it by its human creators.)

But also Gaut seems to return to the product, and claim that this product of creativity must have value. Again, I think this emphasis on product is misguided. Creativity is a process, which involves facing a problem, challenge, or obstacle. If I were to also frame this in Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow in creative processes, the problem faced must be of such a nature that it can be solved, but that the solution will require effort and methods not previously attempted or readily accessible without effort. This process may be iterative, but regardless involves finding a novel solution to the problem, challenge, or obstacle at hand. Creativity does not have to entail success; a failed solution can both be creative and useful — even if there is no product to show for it.

Let’s see if my understanding of creativity holds as I read more — but I am fairly certain my rejection of both “product” and “value” will hold.

KI-retningslinjer for norsk film?

I mai i år publiserte British Film Instutute sin KI-veileder, AI in the Screen Sector: Perspectives and Paths Forward. Rapporten ble utviklet for BFA av CoSTAR Foresight Lab og tar for seg mange sider av KI-utviklingen, både det som skjer (og har skjedd lenge) i bruk av maskinlæring og automatisering i verktøy og programvare som brukes daglig i film og tv-produksjon og de nyere, generative verktøyene som har tatt mye oppmerksomhet de siste 3-4 årene. Rush Print oppsummerer noen av reaksjonene her hjemme i sin artikkel “– Vi trenger en oppdatert og tydelig KI-veiviser.” (bak betalingsmur).

En ting som påpekes i Rush Print-artikkelen er at mye av den offentlige responsen og diskursen virker reaktiv. Vi er tatt på senga, og famler litt rundt for å finne ut hvordan vi skal håndtere den (sannsynligvis) store omveltningen som kommer vaskende over oss som en flodbølge.

Samtidig ser vi andre deler av verden responderer på helt andre måter. I sommer har vi kunnet lese at et indisk produksjonsselskap har brukt KI for å lage en ny versjon av en spillefilm de opprinnelig ga ut i 2013. Den opprinnelige filmen, et romantisk drama, hadde en tragisk slutt. Den nye versjonen har en KI-skapt lykkelig slutt. I vår ga Netflix ut den argentinske science fiction dramaserien El Eternauta. Her har produsentene brukt generativ KI for å skape en storslått VFX-scene som ellers hadde vært utenfor økonomisk rekkevidde for dem. Og fra Hollywood kan vi lese rapporter om økende bruk av KI til å analysere og forbedre manus, hvor menneskelige script doctors og ghost writers erstattes av generative språkmodeller.

Disse tre eksemplene, og utallige andre, viser med all tydelighet at KI ikke er noe som kommer; det er her og i større utstrekning enn de fleste er klar over. Det er en del av hverdagen vi beveger oss i, både i norsk film og i samfunnet forøvrig. Og selv om jeg tør påstå at det store flertallet av skapende filmfolk kanskje blir forferdet over de tre eksemplene jeg trekker frem vil de fleste av oss, mer eller mindre motvillig, innse at dette er en del av fremtiden for store deler av bransjen.

Eksemplet med El Eternauta peker mot at det sannsynligvis blir VFX-bransjen som merker effekten at KI brukes i større skala først. Det er mange tidskrevende og dyre prosesser som relativt enkelt kan automatiseres med KI. Dette vil produksjonsselskaper og distributører ta i bruk, selv om bilder skapt av generativ KI ikke kan manipuleres like nøyaktig og presist som menneskeskapte.

Og med dette kommer også spørsmålet om autentisitet inn. Det virker naturlig å tenke at autentisitet er noe forbeholdt menneskelig kreativitet. For at et kunstverk skal kunne berøre, skal kunne si noe autentisk, vil de fleste av oss mener det må ligge en menneskelig intensjon og kreativitet bak. Men nå begynner forskning å vise at når publikum ikke vet om det de ser eller hører på er menneskeskapt eller ikke så er det ikke så opplagt at de vil foretrekke det menneskeskapte. Det er først når vi gjøres oppmerksom på at det vi har opplevde er skapt av en kunstner eller en KI at vi klart foretrekker det menneskeskapte.

Jeg tenker disse spørsmålene er for store og overgripende til at vi kan — eller bør — forvente at NFI lager en veiledning, et sett med regler, norsk film skal forholde seg til. Samtidig er det klart at Filminstituttet må være viktig del av slike retningslinjer. NFI bør se til BFI, og bestille en rapport med retningslinjer fra de kompetansemiljøene som finnes på dette området. Her må både utdanning — gjennom Den norske filmskolen, TV-skolen og Spillskolen på INN, samt fagmiljøene ved Høgskolen Kristiania og Universitet i Tromsø (filmkunstskolen i Kabelvåg) og flere — bransje gjennom organisasjoner, produksjonsselskap, interesseorganisasjoner og nettverk (som AIAIAI og Oslo Kreativ AI), samt regionale filmsentre og deres samarbeidspartnere på banen. Hvis slike retningslinjer skal speile bredden av behovene i norsk film må de også produseres av en større bredde aktører enn de som sitter i Dronningens gate i Oslo.

I denne sammenheng tror jeg også MishMash — Centre for AI and Creativity vil spille en viktig rolle. MishMash representerer hele bredden av kunstfelt i Norge, og film er representert både gjennom Filmskolen og Høgskolen Kristiania. Senteret skal startes opp i løpet av høsten, og har et viktig oppdrag i å lede utvikling og forståelse for bruk av KI i kunst og kreative næringer, samt beslektede områder. I denne sammenheng vil det også bli åpninger her for flere aktører fra kunstfeltet og bransjen.

Utover dette peker BFIs rapport på noe vesentlig, som også er tilfelle i Norge: manglende ferdigheter og kompetanse. Vi trenger etter- og videreutdanning for både erfarne og nye filmarbeidere. Produsenter, regissører, forfattere, alle trenger mulighet for opplæring innenfor KI. Men også de som vil se jobbene endres eller forsvinne totalt trenger et tilbud som kan gi omskolering; et tilbud som sikrer norsk film ikke mister sårt tiltrengt erfaring og kompetanse men samtidig sikrer at jobbene som gjennomføres er relevante også i fremtiden.

Som undervisningsleder ved Den norske filmskolen er det naturlig for meg å tenke at her skal og må Filmskolen ha en sentral rolle. Men vi kan ikke gjøre dette alene, og vi trenger et konsortium som bringer sammen utdanninger, offentlige instanser, produksjonsselskap, bransjeorganisasjoner og mange flere for å møte disse utfordringene sammen — et konsortium som ansvarliggjør oss alle for å bidra til å løse utfordringene vi står over for og sikrer en felles styrke som gjør det umulig for myndighetene å ignorere.

Three*

Some of the ideas I’ll be exploring in the months — my research semester starts in 18 months — to come.

  • Dewey’s pragmatism, as laid out in Democracy and Education, How We Think, and Art as Experience.
  • Experiential learning, as laid out by David Kolb and critiqued / refined by several others since.
  • Donald Schön’s observations and theories on reflection in action / praxis, with special attention to Lisa Candy’s The Reflective Creative Practitioner.
  • Vygotsky, of course. The zone of proximal learning and scaffolding are key concepts in any educational programme geared towards developing both technical and artistic skills.
  • Seymour Papert’s constructionism. In filmmaking programmes, the students learn best when actually making films, both for purely internal critique but also for public distribution through festivals and the like.
  • Situated learning and «legitimate peripheral participation» as analysed by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger.
  • And, as I’ve already mentioned, 4E cognition, with special emphasis on how it relates to creativity and craft.

* I’m lousy at titles. I might end up using some variation of the number of the post for 2024. Or not.

2 of 366?

I don’t make New Year’s resolutions, but am motivated to get into a writing habit. Yesterday, I was part of a discussion about it on Mastodon, started by Kate Bowles where I jumped in and suddenly realized — inspired by yesterday’s post — that I want to write. I want to be one of the people who find writing a necessity and something one must do in order to think properly. We’ll see if it actually becomes a daily habit, but for now, I will try.

But why?

Much of it has to do with my field — pedagogy for fine arts filmmaking — and some very interesting things I’ve been reading lately about “4E cognition”1 and especially how it relates to creativity. Also, I’ve been reading a lot about the various so-called AI tools that have appeared in the public eye over the past 18 or so months.

The confluence of these things is an interesting thing to muse about. It also necessitates, I think, a concerted effort to, well, think. Writing, as many people have pointed out, most recently (for me), Sarah Honeychurch, writing is thinking and is the one thing we cannot — must not — outsource to a machine.

Thinking, creativity; these are part of what makes us human, what makes us conscious. And while AI
can help us in many ways2, and become a tool that enables forms of creation we perhaps did not have access to previously, it cannot replace human creativity (at least, not yet!).

Footnotes

 

css.php