The level of technological progress achieved recently has led to the creation of wealth and cultural means, unprecedented in the history of mankind. In industrialized countries, these changes in the environment have widely influenced creative manifestations, sometimes even the creation of new areas of creativity (information modeling, home electronics, robotics, biotechnology, bioengineering). On an individual level, the ever-increasing access to new means of processing information and communication, in particular, via the Internet, opens up the possibility of engaging in creative activities that were previously inaccessible to people, especially those living in remote regions. From this we can conclude that the proximity of cultural centers and the ability to share cultural achievements will no longer be such significant predictors of individual creativity, as it was before.
However, although technological progress has provided creative people with a number of new means of activity, it would be a mistake to see only the positive impact of this progress on creativity. Later in this chapter, we briefly touch on how technological progress (for example, the development of computer science or television) can not only support, but also inhibit the development of creativity in society.
New technological opportunities that have appeared in various fields of activity have led to the fact that the ways of solving creative problems have substantially changed. Moreover, new technologies contribute to scientific discoveries and the invention of new forms of creative expression.
For example, written work only benefited from the use of technical means created to support it. These new tools, from the first computer-based word processing programs to more sophisticated modern programs (see Edwards, 2000–2001), make it easy to visualize and place ideas on a piece of paper or on the screen, helping a person to structure his thinking, find groups and connections between ideas and thereby improve the quality of the text.
In the humanities and social sciences, information tools with their ever-increasing computational power have helped to gain new knowledge through a systematic statistical analysis of databases. For example, some software tools can model data by forming homogeneous groups and showing the rules according to which they will act, sometimes in the form of a decision tree. However, it should be emphasized that for such an analysis it is always necessary to prepare data in a strictly defined format. This preparation, without which the discovery of the new is impossible, is carried out by man.
With co-authors, Langley developed programs that are able to rediscover certain physical laws – for example, to reveal hidden relationships between variables in a data set or in a conceptual field. These works were carried out in line with research in the field of artificial intelligence, the purpose of which is to instruct the computer to solve complex problems that require the application of “intelligence”, as if they were entrusted to a person (Proctor, 1999). The first program, called Bacon, used heuristics such as “if the values of two numerical variables increase simultaneously, you need to consider the relationship between them” to search for patterns in the data array. One version of the Bacon program discovered Kepler’s third law from observations of planetary orbits.
Researchers created other programs that applied additional heuristics, database conversion technologies, and formal logic rules. Shank (1988) introduced a program that analyzed and modified existing problem‑solving methods to simulate a creative approach to new problems. For example, problem‑solvers can change the roles of the subject and object, incorporate peripheral elements, or replace a new object with one used in earlier solutions.
In chemistry and biology, computer power and speed have sparked a revolution. Miniature robotics add to this progress. These tools allowed scientists to verify chemical and pharmaceutical properties of thousands of molecules in vivo. They also enabled the creation of new molecules with potentially useful properties.
New technologies, for example, programs for processing and creating images and sounds, also opened up new directions in artistic creation. In addition, researchers sometimes try to ensure that “intelligent” programs themselves create new works of art, although there is still a debate about the extent to which such attempts are productive. Johnson-Laird (1988) developed a program for jazz improvisations; it includes a jazz composition system and rules for combining notes. The main chords are created in advance, and then used in improvisation. Deviations from the main chord sequence follow jazz rules of harmony. At the same time, chance plays a role. Improvisation can move in many directions, creating unique musical outcomes. Subsequent experiments on the use of computer programs to compose music are described by Pachet (Pachet, 2000).
New technologies strongly shape creativity. A full report on their role in the creative process could fill several volumes. Proctor (1999) reviewed artificial intelligence research and emphasized its complexity. Cultural producers now create objects in ever larger quantities, demonstrating the power of technological progress. Papert (1990) argued that this influence runs so deep it fosters a “technocentric” view. In this view, people treat technology as the driver of change rather than the result of human activity, praising it as a solution that reduces tasks and creates a more pleasant environment.
Nevertheless, Edwards (2000–2001) emphasizes the ambiguous role of new technologies in creativity. According to him, creativity can be developed with the help of technology and computer science, if it meets the needs of people. If technologies develop only in terms of efficiency and profitability, the consequences for individual creativity can be very negative. Society’s focus on efficiency and consumption can reduce the need for research and reflection. Without these, creativity struggles to exist. The following are some examples illustrating this paradox.
The first important example of a technical paradox is the Internet. Thanks to technology, the amount of available information is unprecedented. Internet users often rely on search engines to select what they need. Many do not even know how these engines work (Edwards, 2000‑2001).
In education, information technologies have created new teaching aids. Yet, their impact on creativity remains uncertain. Bruce (1989), in a literature review, notes the lack of empirical data on this issue. He concludes that computer effectiveness depends mainly on usage strategies. With rising computer use in training, developers often limit flexibility to boost profits. This restriction reduces the research opportunities available to users.
Finally, the impact of television on creativity has also become a subject of lively debate. According to one hypothesis, television provides a lot of information that the viewer can then use in creative activities. However, researchers have proposed five hypotheses that suggest television negatively affects creativity.
1) The bias hypothesis argues that television harms creativity because of its popularity. Since people devote much of their free time to watching TV, they spend less time on activities that foster creativity, such as reading.
2) the visualization hypothesis ascribes the negative influence of television to its characteristic manner of presenting visual material. Unlike radio or print, television offers “ready-to-use” images, leaving little room for imagination. When confronted with a creative task, it will be more difficult for the viewer to abandon television images;
3) the passivity hypothesis considers television as an easily accessible media that does not require significant intellectual effort. According to this hypothesis, a low level of intellectual effort can become a reference point. A person may then follow this level in other areas. As a result, creative activity is hindered because it requires much greater effort.
4)The accelerated rhythm hypothesis states that television harms creativity due to rapid image changes. Viewers have little time to process information at their own pace. They also struggle to reflect on program content. As a result, television reduces the depth of thinking needed for creative activity.
5) The excitation hypothesis focuses on program content rather than structure. Violent or action‑packed shows encourage impulsive behavior. This behavior contradicts the calmness required for creativity.
Numerous empirical studies have been conducted to test each of these hypotheses. For the most part, they refute the idea that television stimulates creative activity. The only positive effect is that watching TV shows can improve the quality of art products created by subjects.
About the author
Melisa Marzett is an author of many articles working for paper editing service paper editors being an essay editor for more than 5 years now. She leads an active lifestyle, a sports enthusiast and an animal rights activist.
