Comments on: Combinatorial Creativity and the Myth of Originality

By: Tom Witt

Tom Witt — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:04:42 +0000

Do you have any comments on the Zwicky Combinatorial Box?

By: jane Hessin

jane Hessin — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 21:24:34 +0000

Creativity to me —is an insight that i was not aware—- and rejoice at its ‘coming out ‘ —-i just rejoice at any new [?] insight.

By: Todd Blayone

Todd Blayone — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:03:19 +0000

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!

By: jazzZyx

jazzZyx — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:52:04 +0000

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.”

By: mura

mura — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:13:25 +0000

@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?

By: Frederic Detienne

Frederic Detienne — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:39:07 +0000

@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

By: PACIFICUS

PACIFICUS — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 04:53:03 +0000

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.

By: Phil Seymour

Phil Seymour — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 20:42:04 +0000

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”.

By: Ray Weitzman

Ray Weitzman — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:07:11 +0000

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.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:43:52 +0000

It seems to me that the question ought to be: “…how do combinations explain the ‘novel’ part?”