Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
people with as less digital literacy as possible. In 2005 he organized the workshop,
“Creativity Support Tools” (CST) (Shneiderman et al.
2005
) sponsored by the
National Science Foundation.
This workshop intention was stated to have the aim “to develop improved soft-
ware and user interfaces that empower users to be more productive and more inno-
vative”, which shows a bias from creativity into the production processes and
task-oriented software. And this bias becomes even clearer when they state the users
“include software and other engineers, diverse scientists, product and graphic
designers, architects, and many others”. Thus the CST was for people already pro-
ducing and creating; the goal was not to enhance inner creativity but to enhance the
production daily processes - creativity tools that facilitate their daily tasks, in part
to free their minds for other tasks, possibly more creative tasks.
With creative technologies the goal is not to facilitate workfl ows; however, it can
have that effect, but to facilitate the creative act, to make it happen - to open new
“windows” for expression, using digital technologies. Here we agree with the CST
report stating that creativity increases with available technologies:
the capacity of individuals to be creative grows as the software tools spread to diverse dis-
ciplines. The fi rst generation of business software such as spreadsheets, database manage-
ment, email, and web services changed the face of industry and created a global marketplace.
The impact of improved software tools is also clearly visible in fi lmmaking, digital photog-
raphy, video editing, and music composition. The next generation of these tools will have
an even stronger impact as the number of users grows dramatically from few million to a
few billion people. (Shneiderman et al.
2005
:7)
But needless to say that albeit creative technologies are being spread across the
globe, the goal is not to create a “global marketplace” in the sense of creating mass
customers, because it goes against the idea of a “few billion people” creating. This
was well stated in the “long tail” defi nition by Anderson (
2006
) on the changes
going on in the cultural markets and more recently well illustrated by Godin (
2011
)
where he defends the shrinking of mass markets, and emergence of thousands of
new niche markets, totally in accordance with Anderson “long tail” vision.
Another point from the report where we disagree is on the subject of “creativity
enhancement” defended by the report as the main quest. The idea that supports cre-
ative technologies is not grounded within the concept of enhancement, but of dis-
covery. Tools are not supposed to improve the person's capabilities, but to help the
person to fi nd their own creative unique skills, to output them to the world. As Kelly
(
2010
:350) said,
if we fail to enlarge the possibilities for other people we diminish them, and that is unforgiv-
able. Enlarging the scope of creativity for others, then, is an obligation. We enlarge others
by enlarging the possibilities of the technium - by developing more technology and more
convivial expressions of it. (..) can you imagine how poor our world would be if Bach had
been born 1,000 years before the Flemish invented the technology of the harpsichord? Or if
Mozart had preceded the technologies of piano and symphony? How vacant our collective
imaginations would be if Vincent van Gogh had arrived 5,000 years before we invented
cheap oil paint?
