Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The transformational creativity hypothesis

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
New Generation Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The work of Boden on the nature of creativity has been extremely influential, particularly the hypothesis that the highest form of creativity results fromtransformation of a conceptual space. We consider how these ideas could be made more precise, and hence become amenable to empirical testing. This requires some reconsideration of foundational assumptions about computational creativity. We set down the abstract requirements for a conceptual space, review some possible types of formal model, and discuss how it might be possible experimentally to falsify (or corroborate) this hypothesis. We conclude that the central terms (conceptual space, transformation) are still too vaguely defined to support falsifiable claims, but that this is not an obstacle to writing creative computer programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Attardo, S. and Raskin, V., “Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke Representation Model.”Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4, 3, pp. 293–347, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baggi, D. (ed.),Readings in Computer Generated Music, IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Binsted, K. and Ritchie, G., “Computational Rules for Generating Punning Riddles,”Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 10, 1, pp. 25–76, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boden, M., “Modelling Creativity: Reply to Reviewers,”Artificial Intelligence, 79, pp. 161–182, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boden, M.A.,The Creative Mind, Abacus, London, 1992, First published 1990, Second edition Routledge, London, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boden, M.A., “Creativity and Artificial Intelligence,”Artificial Intelligence, 103, pp. 347–356, 1998.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Buchanan, B., “Creativity at the Metalevel,”AI Magazine, (Fall 2001), pp. 13–28, 2001. AAAI-2000 Presidential Address.

  8. Bundy, A., “What is the Difference between Real Creativity and Mere Novelty?,”Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 3, pp. 533–534, 1994. Open Peer Commentary on Reference 5)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, B. and Murphy, G.L., “Models of Concepts,”Cognitive Science, 8, pp. 27–58, 1984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Colton, S.,Automated Theory Formation in Pure Mathematics. Distinguished Dissertations, Springer-Verlag, London, 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Gärdenfors, P., “Induction, Conceptual Spaces and AI,”Philosophy of Science, 57, pp. 78–95, 1990.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Gärdenfors, P., “Conceptual Spaces as a Framework for Knowledge Representation,”Mind and Matter, 2, 2, pp. 9–27, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gärdenfors, P. and Williams, M.-A., “Reasoning About Categories in Conceptualspaces,” inProceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 385–392, Morgan Kaufman, 2001.

  14. Gervás, P., “WASP: Evaluation of Different Strategies for the Automatic Generation of Spanish Verse,” inProceedings of the AISB 00 Symposium on Creative & Cultural Aspects and Applications of AI & Cognitive Science (Wiggins, G.A., ed.), pp. 93–100, Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, 2000.

  15. Gervás, P., “Generating Poetry from a Prose Text: Creativity versus Faithfulness,” inProceedings of the AISB 01 Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Creativity in Arts and Science (Wiggins, G.A., ed.), pp. 93–99, Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, 2001.

  16. Gervás, P., “Exploring quantitative evaluations of the creativity of automatic poets”, in2nd Workshop on Creative Systems, Approaches to Creativity in Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, ECAI2002 (Bento, C., Cardoso, A. and Wiggins, G., eds.), Lyon, France, 2002.

  17. Hopcroft, J. and Ullman, J.,Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1979.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H.,Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John Wiley and Sons, 1976.

  19. Lenat, D., “On Automated Scientific Theory Formation: A Case Study Using the AM Program,” inMachine Intelligence, 9 (Hayes, J., Michie, D. and Mikulich, L., eds.), pp. 251–283, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mackworth, A.K., “Consistency in Networks of Relations,”Artificial Intelligence, 8, pp. 99–118, 1977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Manurung, H.M., Ritchie, G. and Thompson, H., “A Flexible Integrated Architecture for Generating Poetic Texts,” inProceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Natural Language Processing (SNLP 2000), pp. 7–22, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2000.

  22. Manurung, H.M., Ritchie, G. and Thompson, H., “Towards a Computational Model of Poetry Generation,” inProceedings of the AISB 00 Symposium on Creative & Cultural Aspects and Applications of AI & Cognitive Science (Wiggins, G.A., ed.), pp. 79–86, Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, 2000.

  23. Medin, D.L. and Smith, E.E., “Concepts and Concept Formation,”Annual Review of Psychology, 35, pp. 113–138, 1984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Meehan, J.,The Metanovel: Writing Stories by Computer, Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, Department of Computer Science, 1976.

  25. Minsky, M. (ed.),Semantic Information Processing, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Miranda, E.,Composing Music with Computers, Focal Press/Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nilsson, N. J.Problem-solving methods in artificial intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  28. O’Rourke, J., “The Generative-rules Definition of Creativity,”Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 3, pp. 547, 1994. Open Peer Commentary on Reference 5)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Osherson, D.N. and Smith, E.E., “On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts,”Cognition, 9, pp. 35–58, 1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pease, A., Winterstein, D. and Colton, S., “Evaluating Machine Creativity,” inCase-Based Reasoning: Papers from the Workshop Programme at ICCBR 01 (Weber, R. and von Wangenheim, C.G., eds.), pp. 129–137, Vancouver, 2001.

  31. Perkins, D., “An Unfair Review of Margaret Boden’s The Creative Mind from the Perspective of Creative Systems,”Artificial Intelligence, 79, pp. 97–109, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ram, A., Wills, L., Domeshek, E., Neressian, N. and Kolodner, J., “Understanding the Creative Mind: A Review of Margaret Boden’s Creative Mind,”Artificial Intelligence, 79, pp. 111–128, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ritchie, G., “Assessing Creativity,” inProceedings of the AISB Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Creativity in Arts and Science, pp. 3–11, York, England, 2001.

  34. Ritchie, G.,The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes, Routledge, London, 2004.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosch, E. and Mervis, C., “Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories,”Cognitive Psychology, 7, pp. 573–605, 1975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rosch, E., “On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories,” inCognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (Moore, T.E., ed.), pp. 111–144, Academic Press, New York, 1973.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Schank, R.C. and Foster, D.A., “The Engineering of Creativity: A Review of Boden’s Creative Mind,”Artificial Intelligence, 79, pp. 129–143, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Turner, S., “Margaret Boden, The Creative Mind,”Artificial Intelligence, 79, pp. 145–159, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Turner, S.R.,The Creative Process: A Computer Model of Storytelling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wiggins, G., “Towards a More Precise Characterisation of Creativity in AI,” inCase-Based Reasoning: Papers from the Workshop Programme at ICCBR 01 (Weber, R. and von Wangenheim, C.G., eds.), Vancouver, 2001. Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence.

  41. Wiggins, G., “Categorising Creative Systems,” inProceedings of Third (IJCAI) Workshop on Creative Systems: Approaches to Creativity in Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, 2003.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing Science, University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UE, Aberdeen, UK

    Graeme Ritchie

Authors
  1. Graeme Ritchie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graeme Ritchie.

Additional information

Graeme Ritchie, Ph.D.: He is a senior research fellow in the Department of Computing Science at the University of Aberdeen, and has degrees in pure mathematics (Dundee), theoretical linguistics (Essex) and computer science (Edinburgh). His work on computational creativity focusses mainly on models of humour, but he also has an interest in methodological issues.

About this article

Cite this article

Ritchie, G. The transformational creativity hypothesis. New Gener Comput 24, 241–266 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037334

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037334

Keywords

Search

Navigation