June 6, 2012
Combinatorial Creativity and the Myth of Originality
![]()

Celebrated creators have always known the power of the synthesizing mind. Illustration by Ikon Images / Corbis
Editor’s Note: The Innovations blog welcomes this “guest post” by Maria Popova, creator of the Brain Pickings blog.
There is a curious cultural disconnect between our mythology of spontaneous ideation – the Eureka! moment, the stroke of genius, the proverbial light bulb – and how “new” ideas actually take shape, amalgamated into existence by the combinatorial nature of creativity. To create is to combine existing bits of insight, knowledge, ideas, and memories into new material and new interpretations of the world, to connect the seemingly dissociated, to see patterns where others see chaos.
Celebrated creators – artists, writers, scientists, inventors – have always known the power of the synthesizing mind and have advocated for embracing the building blocks of combinatorial creativity. “Stuff your head with more different things from various fields,” Ray Bradbury encouraged students in a 2001 address. “You should stay alert for the moment when a number of things are just ready to collide with one another,” Brian Eno advised. “Creativity is just connecting things,” Steve Jobs proclaimed. “Science,” Darwin recognized, “consists in grouping facts so that general laws or conclusions may be drawn from them.” “Substantially all ideas are second-hand,” Mark Twain observed, “consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them.”
Scientific advances in our understanding of the brain can corroborate this. In his book, Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain, neuroscientist David Eagleman distills the unconscious processing that takes place as we come up with an idea we call our own:
“When an idea is served up from behind the scenes, the neural circuitry has been working on the problems for hours or days or years, consolidating information and trying out new combinations. But you merely take credit without further wonderment at the vast, hidden political machinery behind the scenes.”
Great scientists can speak to this empirically. Legendary French mathematician Henri Poincaré once described how he arrived at the discovery of a class of Fuchsian functions: “Ideas rose in crowds; I felt them collide until pairs interlocked, so to speak, making a stable combination.”
Yet, no matter how much we know about the brain and the inner workings of creativity, the creative process itself will never be easy. Its most frustrating reality is that this crux of combinatorial creation – that magic moment when ideas click together and “make a stable combination” – cannot be forced. In fact, the more we consciously dwell on a problem that requires an innovative solution, the more likely we are to corner ourselves into the nooks of the familiar, entrenched in habitual patterns of thought that lead where they always have.
We can, however, optimize our minds for combinatorial creativity – by enriching our mental pool of resources with diverse, eclectic, cross-disciplinary pieces which to fuse together into new combinations. For creativity, after all, is a lot like LEGO – if we only have a few bricks of one shape, size, and color, what we build would end up dreadfully drab and uniform; but if we equip ourselves with a bag of colorful bricks of various shapes and sizes, the imaginative temples we build might appear to an onlooker to have been inspired by “a ray of grace,” yet we need only look to our bag of LEGOs to be reminded from whence they came.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.























a long time since i looked at literature in creativity
having said that i was spurred by yr post to remember that if creativity is defined as something that is new and useful how can combinations explain the useful part?
ta
mura
2nd attempt at posting!
if creativity is defined as something that is novel and useful, how can combinations explain the useful part?
ta
mura
Usefulness is definitely NOT a requirement of creativity.
It seems to me that the question ought to be: “…how do combinations explain the ‘novel’ part?”
To observe pigeon creativity in action take a look at Robert Epstein’s YouTube video on the Columbian Simulation Project done with B.F. Skinner in 1982. It is clearly “combinatorial”. Also check out Epstein’s book Cognition, Creativity, and Behavior.
Thank you for your description of the creative process. With a few of my acquaintances, who wonder where my creativity comes from, your observations will be a more satisfying answer than, “I keep the muse entertained”.
Hmmm…. And the evidence for the subconscious process is precisely what? If it is subconscious then we don’t know it, can’t time it, or parse it’s development or processes. What we have here then is mere speculation, asserted as fact. The bromides offered by ten thousand creative individuals are not made more plausible because they have been offered. We either know, consciously, or we guess. The two are not equal.
@Dennis: combinations trigger the process. What survives through a market or history is what works and usually is novel.
In summary: crowd -> combination -> ideation -> market/history filter -> recognized innovation
@Rafael Linden how do you define creativity? something that is only novel?
say we look at creativity simply as a two stage process of generation and selection, then combinations can explain some of the generation process but difficult to see how it can account for selection part?
@Ray Weitzman thanks for the youtube ref and book ref, though that book is certainly pricey!
anyone know good links to contemporary research?
Everything in creation has the potential for creativity. The wind sculpting the sand into dunes, an Autumn maple leaf falling on a sidewalk, a dog with paint on its tail. Creativity is an integral part of the universe. The appreciation of creativity, however, is what makes humankind unique. The act of creation only begins the process. It takes a mind capable of understanding complexities, nuances and interactions to appreciate creativity. So, you see, I believe the author has a two- dimensional perception of creativity. Having said that …I agree with what Charlie Chaplain said, to paraphrase him … “I haven’t much use for art that has to be explained to be appreciated.”
Great post! As an historian, I’m found of the phrase: “myth of originality.” One can’t study history without seeing antecedents where others simply extol “originality.”
I have mixed feelings about “combinatorial” as the primary metaphor. I also like “syncretistic.” “Combine” makes me think of “hard” constituent forms. Sometimes I prefer to think of constituent forms as soft, malleable, porous, etc. They can be remolded and blended together into new forms. So yes, collage, hip hop or stew can be “original.” But sometimes what comes out is best viewed as something less “assembled” or “combinatorial.”
Perhaps I’m also thinking in terms of mechanistic versus organic metaphors.
Anyway, great post!
Creativity to me —is an insight that i was not aware—- and rejoice at its ‘coming out ‘ —-i just rejoice at any new [?] insight.
Do you have any comments on the Zwicky Combinatorial Box?