Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Innovation Theory, Aesthetics, and Science of the Artificial After Herbert Simon

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In innovation, the role of aesthetics is important, possibly paramount, but this factor is not reflected in mainstream innovation theory and research. The paper suggests that aesthetics, supported by serendipity, imagination, and creativity constitute the core, i.e., the “soul” of innovation, and that these factors fuel the dynamics of innovation. These factors are set within a framework, a type of conceptual “iron triangle” or trinity of innovation consisting of: diffusion, entrepreneurship, and novelty. Within this, the novelty, this “something” new becomes an innovation because of diffusion, but the diffusion of the innovation is critically dependent on actors with an agency of promoting innovation, i.e., diffusion is pushed by entrepreneurship. Aesthetics fuels this dynamic together with factors related to serendipity, imagination, and creativity. The challenge of incorporating aesthetics and its associates in innovation theory may become feasible by adoption and further development of Herbert Simon's theory of the science of the artificial. The article suggests how this could be done; basically by redefining Simon's notion of the role of the “utility function” in optimization as one that is ruled by aesthetics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ironically, in spite of their achievements in innovation research and theory building, they are not, as economists, what in German is called Salonfähig, as evident in their discourses where they often expend much energy on a criticism of rival economic approaches, in particular the so-called neo-classical economic approach and its notion of equilibrium; their critique is that these approaches do not recognize the dynamic factor of innovation in economic development.

  2. Of course, there are exceptions, such as Robert Merton and Myron Scholes, who received the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics (not a real Nobel prize) in 1997 for developing a new method to determine the value of derivatives, and subsequently served as partners in the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management, that went out of business in year 2000, primarily because its speculative ventures flopped. Myron Scholes later established the Platinum Grove Asset Management that went bankrupt in 2008. Robert Merton went on as a “science officer” in The Trinsum Group, another hedge fund, which went bankrupt in January 2009.

  3. A somewhat similar distinction is made by the theories that suggest that modern knowledge production systems consist of two disparate modes, “Mode 1” and “Mode 2.” Mode 1 is equated with knowledge systems organized as disciplines, typically at universities, and Mode 2 knowledge systems, having a solutions oriented approach, found mainly outside the academia, such as in private sector, governmental agencies, public sector R&D organizations, industrial R&D, etc. (cf. [11, 12].

  4. Possibly, Simon may be interpreted as having a positive idea of “artificial”; in the text, it does not have a negative connotation. In colloquial English and many other European languages (e.g., “künstlich” in German), the expression “artificial” also carries a derogatory connotation as it may imply insincerity, hypocrisy, falsehood, such as in the statement “He seemed artificially friendly.”

  5. In innovation research, one may at times encounter characteristics such as “innovation that failed”. This term has been used for the Picturephone, developed by AT&T’s Bell Labs and launched on the market in 1964. Because only 500 units were sold, this was subsequently withdrawn from the market and designated as a commercial failure, i.e., it did not become the innovation that the Bell Labs researchers had hoped for because the diffusion of Picturephone did not happen. Logically, there is no such thing as an “innovation failure” because this is a contradiction of terms, what is sometimes called a “category mistake”, somewhat similar to the notion of a corpse being “vitally dead”.

  6. This is based on the statement Louis Pasteur made in a lecture at the University of Lille in 1854: “Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés.”

  7. An explanation of this is given in the works of Peirce, cf. “§3. Pragmatism—the Logic of Abduction”—http://www.textlog.de/7663.html

  8. Cf. http://website.lineone.net/~sobriety/ for a presentation of chindogu.

References

  1. Andel PV (1994) Anatomy of the unsought finding. Serendipity: origins, history, domains, traditions, appearances, patterns and programmability. Br J Philos Sci 45:631–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bale K (2009) Estetikk: en innføring. Pax, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  3. Basalla G (1988) The evolution of technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  4. Branan N (2010) Neandertal Symbolism: Evidence Suggests a Biological Basis for Symbolic Thought. Scientific American(April)

  5. Denning, DE (1990) Concerning hackers who break into computer systems. Paper presented at the 13th National Computer Security Conference, 1–4 Oct. 1990, Washington, D.C.

  6. Dosi G (1988) Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. J Econ Lit xxvi:1120–1171

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dutton D (2002) Aesthetic Universals. 2010, from http://www.denisdutton.com/universals.htm

  8. Ferguson ES (1993) Engineering and the mind's eye. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. Florida R (2005) The flight of the creative class. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Freeman C (1995) The “National System of Innovation” in historical perspective. Camb J Econ 19(1):5–24

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gibbons M (1994) Transfer sciences: management of distributed knowledge production. Empirica 21:259–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Godø H (2002) Rethinking computer hacking. VEST - J Sci Technol Stud 15(2–3):53–79

    Google Scholar 

  14. Godø H (2008) Technological evolution, innovation and human agency. In: Carayannis E, Kaloudis A, Mariussen Å (eds) Diversity and heterogeneity in knowledge systems. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 18–34

    Google Scholar 

  15. Godoe H (2000) Innovation regimes, R&D and radical innovations in telecommunications. Res Policy 29:1003–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Håpnes T (1996) “Not in their machines: How hackers transform computers into subcultural artefacts.” In M. Lie & K. H. Sørensen (Eds.), Making technology our own? - Domesticating technology into everyday life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press

  17. Himanen P (2001) The hacker ethic and the spirit of the information age. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hippel EV (1988) The sources of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jordan T, Taylor P (1998) A sociology of hackers. Sociol Rev 46(4):757–780

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kawakami K (1995) 101 unuseless Japanese inventions: the art of Chindogu. HarperCollins Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Latour B (1992) Where are the missing masses: the sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) Shaping technology/building society—studies in sociotechnical change. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 225–258

    Google Scholar 

  22. Levy S (1984) Hackers—heros of the computer revolution, 1993rd edn. Dell Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lundvall B-Å (1993) User-producer relationships, national systems of innovation and internationalization. In: Foray D, Freeman C (eds) Technology and the wealth of the nations—the dynamics of constructed advantage. Pinter Publishers, London, pp 349–369

    Google Scholar 

  24. Merton RK (1968) Social theory and social structure. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Merton RK, Barber E (2004 (1954)) The travels and adventures of serendipity. Princeton: Princeton University Press

  26. Mokyr J (1990) The lever of riches—technological creativity and economic progress. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  27. Needham J (1964) Science and China's influence on the world. In: Dawson R (ed) The legacy of China. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 234–308

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. The Belkap Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Raymond ES (1999) A brief history of hackerdom. In: Chris DiBona SOMS (ed) Open sources—voices for the open source revolution. O'Reilly & Associates, Inc, Sebastopol, pp 19–46

    Google Scholar 

  30. Roberts RM (1989) Serendipity—accidental discoveries in science. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schumpeter J (1934 (1974)) The theory of economic development. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  33. Schumpeter J (1994) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  34. Simon H (1957) Models of man: social and rational: mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Simon H (1969) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  36. Simon H (1992) The science of design: creating the artificial. In: Diani M (ed) The immaterial society—design, culture, and technology in the postmodern world. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp 83–101

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NIFU—Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, PO Box 5183, Majorstuen, 0302, Oslo, Norway

    Helge Godoe

  2. UNIK—University Graduate Center/University of Oslo, PO Box 70, 2027, Kjeller, Norway

    Helge Godoe

Authors
  1. Helge Godoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helge Godoe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Godoe, H. Innovation Theory, Aesthetics, and Science of the Artificial After Herbert Simon. J Knowl Econ 3, 372–388 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0055-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0055-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation