Redefining Creativity in the Era of AI? Perspectives of Computer Scientists and New Media Artists

References

• Adams, W.C. (2015) Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Harty, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 492–505). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Agnoli, S., Corazza, G. E., & Runco, M. A. (2016). Estimating creativity with a multiple-measurement approach within scientific and artistic domains. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 171–176. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1162475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184. doi:10.5465/256995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anantrasirichai, N., & Bull, D. (2022). Artificial intelligence in the creative industries: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55, 89–656. doi:10.1007/s10462-021-10039-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain-specific? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 321–341). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baer, J. (2013). Teaching for creativity: Domains and divergent thinking, intrinsic motivation, and evaluation. In M. Gregerson, J. Kaufman, & H. Snyder (Eds.), Teaching creatively and teaching creativity (pp. 175–181). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27(3), 158–163. doi:10.1080/02783190509554310
   Google Scholar
• Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355–429. doi:10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, A., & James, V. (2018). Learning as performance: Autoencoding and generating dance movements in real time. In A. Liapis, J. J. R. Cardalda, & A. Ekárt (Eds.), International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design (pp. 256–266). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77583-8.
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, S. (2009). New media: The “first word in art? In H. Smith & E. T. Dean (Eds.), Practice-led research, research-led practice in the creative arts (pp. 66–83). Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, M. A. (2009). Computer models of creativity. AI Magazine, 30(3), 23–34. doi:10.1609/aimag.v30i3.2254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boden, M. A. (2016). AI: Its nature and future. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Botella, M., Glaveanu, V., Zenasni, F., Storme, M., Myszkowski, N., Wolff, M., & Lubart, T. (2013). How artists create: Creative process and multivariate factors. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 161–170. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.02.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray, L., & Bown, O. (2016). Applying core interaction design principles to computational creativity. In F. Pachet, A. Cardoso, V. Corruble, & F. Ghedini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC 206) (pp. 93–97). Paris, France: Sony CSL.
   Google Scholar
• Bringsjord, S., Bello, P., & Ferrucci, D. (2001). Creativity, the turing test, and the (better) Lovelace test. Minds and Machines, 11(1), 3–27. doi:10.1023/A:1011206622741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne, K. (2022). Who (or What) Is an AI Artist? Leonardo, 55(2), 130–134. doi:10.1162/leon_a_02092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullot, N. J., Seeley, W. P., & Davies, S. (2017). Art and science: A philosophical sketch of their historical complexity and codependence. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 75(4), 453–463. doi:10.1111/jaac.12398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canaan, R., Menzel, S., Togelius, J., & Nealen, A. (2018). Towards game-based metrics for computational co-creativity. In C. Browne, M. H. M. Winands, J. Liu, & M. Preuss (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG’18) (pp. 482–489). Maastricht, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, K., Fazekas, G., & Sandler, M. (2016). Text-based LSTM networks for automatic music composition [Paper presentation]. In 1st Conference on Computer Simulation of Musical Creativity (CSMC 16), Huddersfield, United Kingdom. arXiv:1604.05358
   Google Scholar
• Chung, N. C. (2021). Human in the loop for machine creativity. In 9th AAAI Conference on Human Computationand Crowdsourcing (HCOMP 2021), Virtual conference.arXiv:2110.03569.
   Google Scholar
• Colin, T. R., Belpaeme, T., Cangelosi, A., & Hemion, N. (2016). Hierarchical reinforcement learning as creative problem solving. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 86, 196–206. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colton, S. (2012). The painting fool: Stories from building an automated painter. In J. McCormack & M. d’Inverno (Eds.), Computers and creativity (pp. 3–38). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Colton, S., & Wiggins, G., A. (2012). Computational creativity: The final frontier? In L. De Raedt, C. Bessiere, D. Dubois, P. Doherty, P. Frasconi, F. Heintz, & P. Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 21–26). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-21
   Google Scholar
• Cropley, A. (2020). Creativity-focused technology education in the age of industry 4.0. Creativity Research Journal, 32(2), 184–191. doi:10.1080/10400419.2020.1751546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The systems model of creativity (pp. 47–61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7_4
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, K. (2014). Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The systems model of creativity (pp. 73–98). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7_7
   Google Scholar
• Daniele, A., & Song, Y. (2019). AI art = human. In V. Conitzer, G. K. Hadfield, & S. Vallor (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 155-161). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3306618.3314233
   Google Scholar
• Davis, N. M. (2013). Human-computer co-creativity: Blending human and computational creativity. In G. Smith & A. Smith (Eds.), The Doctoral Consortium at AIIDE 2013 (pp. 9–12). The AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Garrido, L. (2021). Conceptual design of a creative artificial intelligence system based on the neurocognitive bases of human creativity in the brain. Creativity Research Journal, 1–22. doi:10.1080/10400419.2021.2005309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dvorsky, G. (2017). This artificially intelligent robot composes and performs its own music. Gizmodo. Accessed 1 March 2022. https://gizmodo.com/this-artificially-intelligent-robot-composes-and-perfor-1796093082
   Google Scholar
• Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (2017). Can: Creative adversarial networks, generating” art” by learning about styles and deviating from style norms. In A. Goel, A. Jordanous, & A. Pease (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC’17) (pp.96–103). Georgia Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, A. (2019). The culture of AI: Everyday life and the digital revolution. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Esling, P., & Devis, N. (2020). Creativity in the era of artificial intelligence. In JIM Conference 2020. Journées d’Informatique Musicale, Strasbourg, France. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2008.05959
   Google Scholar
• Fabiano, F., Pelikan, H. R., Pingen, J., Zissoldt, J., Catala, A., & Theune, M. (2017). Designing a co-creative dancing robotic tablet [Paper presentation]. In The 6th International Workshop on Computational Creativity, Concept Invention, and General Intelligence (C3GI 2017), Madrid, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4–5), 482–512. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florida, R. (2014). The rise of the creative class, revisited. NewYork, NY: Hachette.
   Google Scholar
• Fujita, M. (2018). AI and the future of the brain power society: When the descendants of Athena and Prometheus work together. Review of International Economics, 26(3), 508–523. doi:10.1111/roie.12310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatys, L. A., Ecker, A. S., & Bethge, M. (2016). Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Las Vegas, NV, USA. (pp. 2414–2423). doi:10.1109/CVPR.2016.265
   Google Scholar
• Gioti, A. (2020). From artificial to extended intelligence in music composition. Organised Sound, 25(1), 25–32. doi:10.1017/S1355771819000438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaveanu, V. P., & Kaufman, J. C. (2019). A historical perspective. In J. Kaufman R. & Sternberg (Eds.). Cambridge, UK: The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316979839.
   Google Scholar
• Glaveanu, V., Lubart, T., Bonnardel, N., Botella, M., de Biaisi, P., Desainte-Catherine, M., … Mouchiroud, C. (2013). Creativity as action: Findings from five creative domains. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, J. (2018). Creativity as an artistic merit. In B. Gaut & M. Kieran (Eds.), Creativity and philosophy (pp. 333–349). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. doi:10.1037/h0063487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, J. (2021). A thousand brains - a new theory of intelligence. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Hautala, J. (2021). Can robots possess knowledge? Rethinking the DIK (W) pyramid through the lens of employees of an automotive factory. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–10. doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00893-9
   Google Scholar
• Hautala, J., & Ibert, O. (2018). Creativity in arts and sciences: Collective processes from a spatial perspective. Environment and Planning A, 50(8), 1688–1696. doi:10.1177/0308518X18786967
   Google Scholar
• Hautala, J., & Jauhiainen, J. S. (2014). Spatio-temporal processes of knowledge creation. Research Policy, 43(4), 655–668. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.002
   Google Scholar
• Hautala, J., & Jauhiainen, J. S. (2019). Creativity-related mobilities of peripheral artists and scientists. GeoJournal, 84(2), 381–394. doi:10.1007/s10708-018-9866-3
   Google Scholar
• Hautala, J., & Jauhiainen, J. S. (2022). Co-creating Knowledge with Robots: System, Synthesis, and Symbiosis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Hayles, N. K. (2017). Unthought: The power of the cognitive nonconscious. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226447919.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Hertzmann, A. (2018). Can computers create art? Arts, 7(2), 18. doi:10.3390/arts7020018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, J., Curran, N. M., Harandi, M., Zhou, Z., Pietikäinen, M., & Zhao, G. (2019). Artificial intelligence, artists, and art: Attitudes toward artwork produced by humans vs. artificial intelligence. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 15(2s), 1–16. doi:10.1145/3326337
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huizinga, J. (1938/1955). Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jeon, M., Fiebrink, R., Edmonds, E. A., & Herath, D. (2019). From rituals to magic: Interactive art and HCI of the past, present, and future. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 131, 108–119. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. (2009). Phase space: Geography, relational thinking, and beyond. Progress in Human Geography, 33(4), 487–506. doi:10.1177/0309132508101599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordanous, A. (2016). Four PPPPerspectives on computational creativity in theory and in practice. Connection Science, 28(2), 194–216. doi:10.1080/09540091.2016.1151860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantosalo, A., & Riihiaho, S. (2019). Experience evaluations for human–computer co-creative processes–planning and conducting an evaluation in practice. Connection Science, 31(1), 60–81. doi:10.1080/09540091.2018.1432566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantosalo, A., & Toivonen, H. (2016). Modes for creative human-computer collaboration: Alternating and task-divided co-creativity. In A. Cardoso, V. Corruble, & F. Ghedini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity (pp. 77–84). Paris, France.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karimi, P., Rezwana, J., Siddiqui, S., Maher, M. L., & Dehbozorgi, N. (2020). Creative sketching partner: An analysis of human-AI co-creativity. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 221–230. Cagliary, Italy. doi:10.1145/3377325.3377522
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298. doi:10.1037/a0029751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirsch, C., Lubart, T., & Houssemand, C. (2014). Creative personality: The importance of an autonomous working style. In E. Xeni (Ed.), Creativity in educational research and practice (pp. 123–140). Brill. doi:10.1163/9781848883086_012
   Google Scholar
• Klausen, S. H. (2014). Interdisciplinarity and creativity. In E. Shiu (Ed.), Creativity research. an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research handbook (pp. 31–50). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lundman, R. (2012). Kaupunki leikkikenttänä [City as a Playground]. Alue Ja Ympäristö, 41(1), 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2013). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Journal of Economic Sociology, 14(2), 73–87. doi:10.17323/1726-3247-2013-2-73-87
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J., & Hollister, J. M. (2020). Internet-mediated research in the age of social distancing: Methodological reflections and recommendations from two online research projects. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 51(2), 319–353. doi:10.16981/kliss.51.2.202006.319
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Y., Guo, J., Chen, Y., Yao, C., & Ying, F. (2020). It is your turn: Collaborative ideation with a co-creative robot through sketch. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 295–308. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubart, T., & Guignard, J. (2004). The generality-specificity of creativity: A multivariate approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (p. 43–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10692-004
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, B. (2001). Creative teaching, teaching creativity and creative learning. In A. Craft, A. Craft, & A. Craft (Eds.), Creativity in education (pp. 35–44). Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Maher, M. L. (2012). Computational and collective creativity: Who’s being creative? In M. L. Maher, K. Hammond, A. Pease, R. Pérez y Pérez, D. Ventura & G. Wiggins (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Creativity (pp. 67–71). Dublin, Ireland: University College Dublin.
   Google Scholar
• Marnin-Distelfeld, S., & Dorchin, U. (2020). “I am not an artist, I make art”: Amateurish artists in Israel and the sense of creativity. Creativity Studies, 13(1), 64–86. doi:10.3846/cs.2020.9907
   Google Scholar
• Mazzone, M., & Elgammal, A. (2019). Art, creativity, and the potential of artificial intelligence. Arts, 8(1), 26. doi:10.3390/arts8010026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meusburger, P., Funke, J., & Wunder, E. (2009). Introduction: The spatiality of creativity. In P. Meusburger, J. Funke, & E. Wunder (Eds.), Milieus of creativity (pp. 1–10). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9877-2_1
   Google Scholar
• Miller, A. I. (2019). The Artist in the Machine: The World of AIPowered Creativity. Cambride, MA: Mit Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, A. I. (2020). Creativity in the Age of AI: Computers and artificial neural networks are redefining the relationship between art and science. American Scientist, 108(4), 244–249. doi:10.1511/2020.108.4.244
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, M. (2019). Artificial intelligence: A guide for thinking humans. New York, NY: Penguin UK.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, V. C. (2021). Ethics of artificial intelligence and robotics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed 1 March 2022 https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/ethics-ai
   Google Scholar
• Nieves, J., & Osorio, J. (2013). The role of social networks in knowledge creation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(1), 62–77. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.28
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pease, A., & Colton, S. (2011). On impact and evaluation in computational creativity: A discussion of the Turing Test and an alternative proposal. In D. Kazakov & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Proceedings of AISB ‘11: computing and philosophy (pp. 15–22). Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour.
   Google Scholar
• Pereira, F. C. (2007). Creativity and artificial intelligence: A conceptual blending approach. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Piplica, A., DeLeon, C., & Magerko, B. (2012). Full-Body gesture interaction with improvisational narrative agents. In Y. Nakano, M. Neff, A. Paiva, & M. Walker (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents 2012. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7502, pp. 514–516). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33197-8_63
   Google Scholar
• Puryear, J. S., & Lamb, K. N. (2020). Defining creativity: How far have we come since plucker, beghetto, and dow? Creativity Research Journal, 32(3), 206–214. doi:10.1080/10400419.2020.1821552
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ragot, M., Martin, N., & Cojean, S. (2020). Ai-generated vs. human artworks. a perception bias towards artificial intelligence? In Extended abstracts of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–10). New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, G. (2007). Some empirical criteria for attributing creativity to a computer program. Minds and Machines, 17(1), 67–99. doi:10.1007/s11023-007-9066-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Root-Bernstein, M. (2014). Inventing imaginary worlds: From childhood play to adult creativity across the arts and sciences. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (p. 127–151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10692-008
   Google Scholar
• Rose, R. (2017). Posthuman agency in the digitally mediated city: Exteriorization, individuation, reinvention. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(4), 779–793. doi:10.1080/24694452.2016.1270195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roudavski, S., & McCormack, J. (2016). Post-anthropocentric creativity. Digital Creativity, 27(1), 3–6. doi:10.1080/14626268.2016.1151442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Greenwood Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.652929
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (3rd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sax, L. J., Lehman, K. J., Jacobs, J. A., Kanny, M. A., Lim, G., Monje-Paulson, L., & Zimmerman, H. B. (2017). Anatomy of an enduring gender gap: The evolution of women’s participation in computer science. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(2), 258–293. doi:10.1080/00221546.2016.1257306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2013). What is a creative idea? little-c versus big-C creativity. In J. Chan & K. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Creativity. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9780857939814.00015
   Google Scholar
• Snow, C. P. (1993). The two cultures (revised edition ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stein, M. I. (1987). Creativity research at the crossroads: A 1985 perspective. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 417–427). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Domain-generality versus domain-specificity of creativity. In P. Meusburger, J. Funke, & E. Wunder (Eds.), Milieus of creativity (pp. 25–38). Spinger.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (2018a). A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(1), 50. doi:10.1037/aca0000095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (2018b). Evaluating merit among scientists. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 209–216. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, C. E., Jr, & Zabelina, D. L. (2020). Classifying creativity: Applying machine learning techniques to divergent thinking EEG data. NeuroImage, 219, 116990. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116990
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su, Z., Togay, G., & Côté, A. M. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A destructive and yet creative force in the skilled labour market. Human Resource Development International, 24(3), 341–352. doi:10.1080/13678868.2020.1818513
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toivonen, H., & Gross, O. (2015). Data mining and machine learning in computational creativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 5(6), 265–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Wyse, L. (2019). Mechanisms of artistic creativity in deep learning neural networks. In K. Grace, M. Cook, D. Ventura, M. L. Maher (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC’19) (pp. 116–123). Charlotte, UK: Association for Computational Creativity.
   Google Scholar
• Zylinska, J. (2020). AI art. London, UK: Open Humanities Press.
   Google Scholar