ABSTRACT

Over several decades, novel-and-appropriate has become established as the standard definition of creativity; while allowing for variations in the exact wording, the requirement that creativity requires external validation of value, utility, etc. is largely unchallenged. This functions well in high consensus fields in which value can be empirically verified. However, in low consensus fields such as the arts, value judgments are subjective, controversies abound, and it can take a long time to reach agreement. As a result, novel-and-appropriate needs to be revisited as a generalized definition. In its place, a successful definition should take into account that bringing something novel to life often requires taking the initiative long before there is external judgment of value or utility and, in low consensus fields, those external judgments can be a poor barometer. Synthesizing arguments by Simonton and Weisberg, the solution is to conduct separate analyses for personal production and public reception, and to remove utility from the definition of creativity. Advantages, risks, and implications of the recommended framework are discussed.

摘要

在过去的几十年中，新颖而恰当的方法被确立为创造力的标准定义。在允许确切措辞变化的同时，对创造力需要外部验证价值，效用等的要求在很大程度上没有受到挑战。这在可以通过经验验证价值的高度一致的领域中很好地发挥了作用。但是，在诸如艺术等共识程度较低的领域中，价值判断是主观的，争议很多，达成共识可能需要很长时间。结果，需要重新考虑新颖而适当的定义。取而代之的是，一个成功的定义应考虑到，要使新颖的事物栩栩如生，通常需要在对价值或效用做出外部判断之前就采取主动行动，而在低共识领域，这些外部判断可能是一个糟糕的晴雨表。综合Simonton和Weisberg的论点，解决方案是对个人生产和公众接受进行单独的分析，并从创造力的定义中去除效用。讨论了建议框架的优势，风险和含义。