An Enactive Model of Creativity for Computational Collaboration and Co-creation

Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)


The modern landscape of computing has rapidly evolved with breakthroughs in new input modalities and interaction designs, but the fundamental model of humans giving commands to computers is still largely dominant. A small but growing number of projects in the computational creativity field are beginning to study and build creative computers that are able to collaborate with human users as partners by simulating, to various degrees, the collaboration that naturally occurs between humans in creative domains (Biles, Leonardo, 36:43–45, 2003; Lubart, Int J Hum Comput Stud, 63:365–369, 2005; Hoffman and Weinberg, Shimon: an interactive improvisational robotic marimba player. In: CHI’10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, pp 3097–3102, 2010; Zook et al., Understanding human creativity for computational play. In: 8th ACM conference on creativity and cognition, 2011; Davis et al., Building artistic computer colleagues with an enactive model of creativity, 2014). If this endeavor proves successful, the implications for HCI and the field of computing in general could be significant. Creative computers could understand and work alongside humans in a new hybrid form of human-computer co-creativity that could inspire, motivate, and perhaps even teach creativity to human users through collaboration.


Semantic Constraint Human Creativity Enactive Approach Creative Behavior Creative System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adamson RE (1952) Functional fixedness as related to problem solving: a repetition of three experiments. J Exp Psychol 44(4):288–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnheim R (1954) Art and visual perception. University of California Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  3. Barsalou LW (1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behav Brain Sci 22(04):637–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biles JA (2003) GenJam in perspective: a tentative taxonomy for GA music and art systems. Leonardo 36(1):43–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boden MA (2004) The creative mind: myths and mechanisms. Psychology Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bono ED (1970) Lateral thinking: a textbook of creativity. Ward Lock Educational/El pensamiento lateral: manual de creatividad, Londres/Versión españolaGoogle Scholar
  7. Candy L (1997) Computers and creativity support: knowledge, visualisation and collaboration. Knowl-Based Syst 10(1):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carroll EA, Latulipe C, Fung R, Terry M (2009) Creativity factor evaluation: towards a standardized survey metric for creativity support. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on creativity and cognition. ACM, New York, pp 127–136Google Scholar
  9. Colton S, Wiggins GA (2012) Computational creativity: the final frontier? In: Proceedings of European conference on artificial intelligence, pp 21–26Google Scholar
  10. Colton S, Goodwin J, Veale T (2012) Full face poetry generation. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on computational creativity. International Conference on Computational Creativity, pp 95–102Google Scholar
  11. Csikszentmihalyi M (1997) Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis N, Li B, O’Neill B, Riedl M, Nitsche M (2011) Distributed creative cognition in digital filmmaking. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on creativity and cognition. ACM, New York, pp 207–216Google Scholar
  13. Davis N, Popova Y, Sysoev I, Hsiao CP, Zhang D, Magerko B (2014) Building artistic computer colleagues with an enactive model of creativity. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on computational creativity. The International Association for Computational Creativity, pp 38–45Google Scholar
  14. De Jaegher H (2009) Social understanding through direct perception? Yes, by interacting. Conscious Cogn 18(2):535–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dixon D, Prasad M, Hammond T (2010) iCanDraw: using sketch recognition and corrective feedback to assist a user in drawing human faces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 897–906Google Scholar
  16. Engel AK (2010) Directive minds: how dynamics shapes cognition. In: Enaction: towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 219–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabora L (2010) Revenge of the “neurds”: characterizing creative thought in terms of the structure and dynamics of memory. Creat Res J 22(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaspar JM, McDonald JJ (2014) Suppression of salient objects prevents distraction in visual search. J Neurosci 34(16):5658–5666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  20. Glenberg AM (1997) What memory is for: creating meaning in the service of action. Behav Brain Sci 20(01):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldschmidt G (1991) The dialectics of sketching. Creat Res J 4(2):123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guilford JP (1970) Creativity: retrospect and prospect*. J Creat Behav 4(3):149–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Havelange V (2010) The ontological constitution of cognition and the epistemological constitution of cognitive science: phenomenology, enaction and technology. In: Enaction: towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 335–360Google Scholar
  24. Hewett T, Czerwinski M, Terry M, Nunamaker J, Candy L, Kules B, Sylvan E (2005) Creativity support tool evaluation methods and metrics. Creativity Support Tools, 10–24Google Scholar
  25. Hodhod R, Piplica A, Magerko B (2012) A formal architecture of shared mental models for computational improvisational agents. In: Intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 440–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoffman G, Weinberg G (2010) Shimon: an interactive improvisational robotic marimba player. In: CHI’10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 3097–3102Google Scholar
  27. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee YJ, Zitnick CL, Cohen MF (2011) ShadowDraw: real-time user guidance for freehand drawing. ACM Trans Graph 30(4):27:1–27:10. doi: 10.1145/2010324.1964922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lubart T (2005) How can computers be partners in the creative process: classification and commentary on the special issue. Int J Hum Comput Stud 63(4):365–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mace MA, Ward T (2002) Modeling the creative process: a grounded theory analysis of creativity in the domain of art making. Creat Res J 14(2):179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mamykina L, Candy L, Edmonds E (2002) Collaborative creativity. Commun ACM 45(10):96–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCorduck P (1991) Aaron’s code. WH Freeman & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakakoji K (2006) Meanings of tools, support, and uses for creative design processes. In: International design research symposium ‘06, SeoulGoogle Scholar
  34. Nersessian N (2008) Creating scientific concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  35. Newell A, Shaw JC, Simon HA (1959) The processes of creative thinking. Rand Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  36. Noë A (2004) Action in perception. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. Norman DA (1999) Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6(3):38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rawlinson JG (1981) Creative thinking and brainstorming. Gower, FarnboroughGoogle Scholar
  39. Schön DA (1992) Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowl-Based Syst 5(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shneiderman B (2002) Creativity support tools. Commun ACM 45(10):116–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shneiderman B (2007) Creativity support tools: accelerating discovery and innovation. Commun ACM 50(12):20–32. doi: 10.1145/1323688.1323689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shneiderman B, Fischer G, Czerwinski M, Resnick M, Myers B, Candy L, Terry M (2006) Creativity support tools: report from a US National Science Foundation sponsored workshop. Int J Hum Comput Interact 20(2):61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith SM, Ward TB, Finke RA (eds) (1995) The creative cognition approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. Stewart JR, Gapenne O, Di Paolo EA (eds) (2010) Enaction: toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  45. Suchman L (1986) Plans and situated actions. Cambridge University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Suwa M, Tversky B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des Stud 18(4):385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Varela FJ, Rosch E, Thompson E (1991) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  48. Veale T, Hao Y (2008) A fluid knowledge representation for understanding and generating creative metaphors. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computational linguistics, vol 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, pp 945–952Google Scholar
  49. Yokochi S, Okada T (2005) Creative cognitive process of art making: a field study of a traditional Chinese ink painter. Creat Res J 17(2–3):241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zook A, Magerko B, Riedl M (2011) Formally modeling pretend object play. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on creativity and cognition. ACM, New York, pp 147–156Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Cognitive ScienceCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations