Advertisement

Evaluating Creativity

  • Linda Candy
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS, volume 20)

Abstract

This chapter explores the concept of evaluation and its potential ­contribution to creativity. The particular focus is on evaluation within those areas of creative practice where the interaction between human beings and digital systems is a central goal. A multi-dimensional model of creativity is introduced that provides a holistic framework for evaluating the actors and elements in creativity. The approach is informed by studies arising from practice-based research, a form of research adopted by creative practitioners for whom the artifact, for example an artwork, is a central concern. The domain from which the ideas and examples are derived is the interactive digital arts, a vibrant, emerging field that affords rich opportunities for interaction design to explore criteria for evaluation arising directly from designing interactive systems that engage people in creative ways.

Keywords

creativity evaluation reflection-in-action design rationale interactive art 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is profoundly grateful to the artists and researchers who worked at the Creativity and Cognition Studios, University of Technology and Beta-Space, The Powerhouse Museum, Sydney. Special thanks are due to Dr Zafer Bilda for his important contribution to the creativity evaluation model through his studies of interactive art experience and the development of the Creative Engagement Model.

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 393–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevan, N., & Macleod, M. (1994). Usability measurement in context. Behaviour and Information Technology, 13, 132–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilda, Z. (2011). Designing for audience engagement. In L. Candy & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Interacting: Art, research and the creative practitioner (pp. 163–181). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bilda, Z., Costello, B., & Amitani, S. (2006). Collaborative analysis framework for evaluating interactive art experience. International Journal of CoDesign, 2(4), 238–255.Google Scholar
  5. Bilda, Z., Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (2008). Designing for creative engagement, in interaction design and creative practice special issue. Design Studies, 29(6), 525–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boden, M. A. (1990). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Boden, M. A. (1998). Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 103(1–2), 347–356.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boden, M. A. (2010). Aesthetics and interaction. In: Creativity and art: Three roads to surprise (Chapter 11, pp. 210–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Candy, L. (1993, August). Hypothetical design in the perfect world: Observations on design rationale in knowledge support systems development. In 5th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (p. 222). Poster Sessions: Abridged Proceedings, Orlando.Google Scholar
  10. Candy, L. (1997). Computers and creativity support: Knowledge, visualization and collaboration. Knowledge Based Systems, 10(1), 3–13.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Candy, L. (2002). Collaboration. In L. Candy, & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Explorations in art and technology (Chapter 4, pp. 56–66). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Candy, L. (2011). Research and creative practice. In L. Candy & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Interacting: Art, research and the creative practitioner (pp. 33–59). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Candy, L., & Bilda, Z. (2007, June). Understanding and evaluating creativity. In Creativity and cognition 2007. Washington, DC/New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. Candy, L., & Bilda, Z. (2009, October). Understanding and evaluating creativity. In Creativity and cognition 2009. UC Berkeley/New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  15. Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (1993). Collaborative design in system development: What place for design rationale? In AAAI-93 Workshop Program, Working Notes on the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 283–285). Washington, DC: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  16. Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (1994). Artefacts and the designer’s process: Implications for computer support to design. Journal of Design Sciences and Technology, 3(1), 11–31.Google Scholar
  17. Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (1995). Creativity in knowledge work: A process model and requirements for support. In H. Hassan, & C. Nicastri (Ed.), Proceedings OZCHI’95, HCI A Light into the Future. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  18. Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (1996). Creative design of the lotus bicycle: Implications for knowledge support system research. Design Studies, 17(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (2002a). Modeling co-creativity in art and technology. In T. T. Hewett & T. Kavanagh (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on creativity and cognition (pp. 134–141). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (2002b). Explorations in art and technology. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (2011). Interacting: Art, research and the creative practitioner. Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Carroll, J. M., & Campbell, R. L. (1989). Artifacts as psychological theories: The case of human-computer interaction. Behaviour and Information Technology, 8(4), 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cockton, G. (2008). Revisiting usability’s three key principles. In CHI08 extended abstracts in CHI2008. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Costello, B. (2007). A pleasure framework. Leonardo, 40(4), 370–371.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Costello, B. (2011). Many voices, one project. In L. Candy & E. A. Edmonds (Eds.), Interacting: Art, research and the creative practitioner (pp. 182–194). Oxford: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1996). Introduction: The Delft protocols workshop. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity (pp. 1–14). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Edmonds, E. A. (2007). The art of programming or programs as art. In H. Fujita & D. Pisanelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th new trends in software methodologies, tools and techniques (SoMeT_07) (pp. 119–125). Washington, DC: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  29. Edmonds, E. A. (2010). The art of interaction. Digital Creativity, 21(4), 257–264.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Edmonds, E. A. (2011). Art, interaction and engagement. In L. Candy & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Interacting: Art, research and the creative practitioner (pp. 228–241). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Edmonds, E. A., & Candy, L. (2002). Creativity, art practice and knowledge. Communications of the ACM Special Section on Creativity and Interface, 45(10), 91–95.Google Scholar
  32. Edmonds, E. A., & Candy, L. (2010). Relating theory, practice and evaluation in practitioner research. Leonardo Journal, 43(5), 470–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Edmonds, E. A., Candy, L., Fell, M., Pauletto, S., & Weakley, A. (2005). The studio as laboratory: Combining creative practice and digital technology research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies Special Issue on Creativity and Computational Support, 63(4), 452–481.Google Scholar
  34. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research and application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Greenberg, S., & Buxton, B. (2008). Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time). In Proceedings of CHI2008. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  37. Harris, C. (1999). Art and innovation: The Xerox PARC artist-in-residence program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hassenzahl, M. (2004). The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(4), 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leggett, M. (2011). Memory, schema and interactive video. In L. Candy & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Interacting: Art, research and the creative practitioner (pp. 282–294). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Muller, L., Edmonds, E., & Connell, M. (2006). Living laboratories for interactive art, in CoDesign. International Journal of Co-Creation in Design and the Arts 2(4), 195–207. Taylor & Francis Group, UK.Google Scholar
  43. Partridge, D., & Rowe, J. (1994). Computers and creativity. Oxford: Intellect.Google Scholar
  44. Perkins, D. N. (1981). The mind’s best work. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Phalip, J. (2011). Creative communication in film scoring. In L. Candy & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Interacting: Art, research and the creative practitioner (pp. 136–149). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Polyani, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc.Google Scholar
  47. Prix Ars Electronica: http://www.aec.at/prix/en/. Accessed 23 Feb 2012.
  48. Reeves, S. (2011). Designing interfaces in public settings. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.Google Scholar
  50. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. (Reprinted Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1991, 2003)Google Scholar
  51. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shneiderman, B. (2002). Creativity support tools. Communications of the ACM, 45(10), 116–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shneiderman, B., Fischer, G., Czerwinski, M., Resnick, M., Myers, B., Candy, L., Edmonds, E., Eisenberg, M., Giaccardi, E., Hewett, T., Jennings, P., Kules, B., Nakakoji, K., Nunamaker, J., Pausch, R., Selker, T., Sylvan, E., & Terry, M. (2006). Creativity support tools: Report from a U.S. National Science Foundation sponsored workshop. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 20(2), 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sydenham, P. H. (2003). Relationship between measurement, knowledge and advancement. Measurement, 34, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tractinsky, N., Adi, S. K., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turnbull, D., & Connell, M. (2011). Prototyping places: The museum. In L. Candy & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Interacting: Art, research and the creative practitioner (pp. 79–93). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention and the arts. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  59. Williams, A., Ostwald, M. J., & Askland, H. H. (2010). Creativity, design and education. NSW: Australian Learning & Teaching Council, Sydney, Print National.Google Scholar
  60. Zhang, Y., & Candy, L. (2007a). An in-depth case study of art- technology collaboration. In Proceedings of creativity and cognition 2007 (pp. 53–62). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  61. Zhang, Y., & Candy, L. (2007b). A communicative behaviour analysis of art-technology collaboration. In M. J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference on human-computer interaction, 2007 (pp. 212–221). Beijing: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Zhang, Y. (2011). Investigating collaboration in art and technology. In L. Candy & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Interacting: Art, research and the creative practitioner (pp. 122–135). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Creativity & Cognition Studios, School of Software, Faculty of Engineering and ITUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations