The Curse of Creativity

  • David C. Brown


Computational design creativity is hard to study, and until fairly recently it has received very little attention. Mostly the focus has been on extreme non-routine cases. But there are hard sub-problems and others ways of moving towards creative systems that are worth considering. This paper presents three of the alternatives, discussing one in more depth: i.e., to look at what changes can be made to routine design systems in order to produce more creative outputs. This focuses on working “upwards” towards creativity, examining smaller, ingredient decisions that make a difference to the result. As the amount of creativity displayed by a design is a judgment made by some person or group, it should be possible to investigate the degree of impact of changes to routine design mechanisms. This will contribute to our understanding of less “extreme” reasoning that leads to judgments of increased creativity: i.e., the foundation on which other methods rest.


Analogical Reasoning Creativity Research Routine Design Creative System Basic Synthesis 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brown, D.C.: Routineness revisited. In: Waldron, M., Waldron, K. (eds.) Mechanical Design: Theory and Methodology, pp. 195–208. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boden, M.A.: What is creativity? In: Boden, M.A. (ed.) Dimensions of Creativity, pp. 75–117. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amabile, T.M.: The social psychology of creativity. J. of Personality and Social Psychology 43, 997–1013 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., Vaid, J.: Conceptual structures and processes in creative thought. In: Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., Vaid, J. (eds.) Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes. American Psychological Association (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Besemer, S.P.: Creating Products in the Age of Design. New Forums Press, Inc. (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Besemer, S.P., Treffinger, D.J.: Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. J. of Creative Behavior 15, 158–178 (1981)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horn, D., Salvendy, G.: Consumer-based assessment of product creativity: A review and reappraisal. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing 16(2), 155 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Quin, K., Besemer, S.P.: The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale.   Creativity Research J. 2(4), 267–278 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yaner, P., Goel, A.: From design drawings to structural models by compositional analogy. AI in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 117–128 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koza, J.R.: Human-competitive machine invention by means of genetic programming, in special issue on Genetic Programming for Human-Competitive Designs. In: Spector, L. (ed.) AI in Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, vol. 22(3), pp. 185–193. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turner, M., Fauconnier, G.: Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10(3), 183–204 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagai, Y., Taura, T., Mukai, F.: Concept blending and dissimilarity: factors for creative concept generation process. Design Studies 30(6), 675–848 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown, D.C.: Guiding computational design creativity research. In: Gero, J.S. (ed.) Studying Design Creativity. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear, 2010),
  14. 14.
    Brown, D.C.: DSPL: Design Specialists and Plans Language (1983/1996),
  15. 15.
    Brown, D.C., Chandrasekaran, B.: Design Problem Solving: Knowledge Structures and Control Strategies. Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence Series. Pitman Publishing, Ltd., London (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., Finke, R.A.: Creative cognition. In: Sternberg, R.J. (ed.) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Srinivasan, V., Chakrabarti, A.: Investigating novelty-outcome relationship in engineering design, in special issue on Creativity: Simulation, Stimulation, and Studies. In: Maher, M.L., Bonnardel, N., Kim, Y.-S. (eds.) AI in Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, vol. 24(2). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boden, M.A., D’Inverno, M., McCormack, J. (eds.): Computational Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach. In: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 09291 (2009),
  19. 19.
    Brown, D.C.: Artistic creativity and its evaluation, in computational creativity: An interdisciplinary approach. In: Boden, M.A., et al. (eds.) Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 09291 (2009),
  20. 20.
    Jirousek, C.: Art, Design and Visual Thinking (1995),
  21. 21.
    Goel, A.K., Bylander, T., Chandrasekaran, B., Dietterich, T.G., Keller, R.M., Tong, C.: Knowledge compilation: A symposium. IEEE Expert 6(2), 71–93 (1991)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brown, D.C.: The reusability of DSPL systems, Workshop on Reusable Design Systems. In: Second International Conference on AI in Design, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wielinga, B.J., Schreiber, G.: Configuration design problem solving. IEEE Expert, 49–56 (March-April 1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, R., Lenat, D.B.: Knowledge-Based Systems in Artificial Intelligence. McGraw-Hill, New York (1982)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.Worcester Polytechnic InstituteUSA

Personalised recommendations