The Art of Innovation, Invention, and Creativity

I spent an enjoyable evening today at dinner with friends talking about innovation: specifically, what differentiates the characteristic of innovative from creative from inventive.

Answer the following questions:

       A. e e cummings’ poetry is:

1. creative
2. innovative
3. inventive

        B. Name a painter who was creative but not innovative.

        C. Can an artist be innovative but not creative?

        D. Name an invention that was neither creative nor innovative.

These were some of the questions that we discussed, and I’d be curious to hear answers from those reading this and their reasons for giving them.

You’ll notice that our discussion tended away from technology and more towards artistic fields. This was intended as a way to shed new light on how we innately think of these concepts, what representations of these concepts have been built up in our lives. Thinking about which artists you consider creative, or innovative, or inventive, and why you make that distinction can illuminate our application of these terms to business, science and technology--fields where these terms get applied so often that their differentiation has become obscured.

With respect to the arts, the term creative seemed to require that the observer have a visceral response to the artwork, some level of appreciation or aesthetic response. The mere act of creating something does not demand that the act be denoted “creative” in this context. A work could be different and inventive while not inducing in the viewer/reader a response that creates the reaction “creative”. We can understand this in technology through Edison’s quote, “Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.” This quote from our greatest inventor can also apply to the act of invention. Developing something new can result simply from hard work and does not necessarily require any creativity at all.

Creativity also requires the context of history—a piece of art is judged creative when considering what has been done previously by that artist and by other artists. Context helps define what is creative and what is derivative.

Innovation, however, requires the contexts of both the past and the future. Innovation must be creative (the past, see above), but must also cause a change in the creations of others (the future). If someone creates a piece of art that incorporates a new technique, the piece would only be innovative if it inspired other artists to change how they create art, perhaps by creating a movement based around a new technique or approach. Innovation thus demands a social context of some sort that creativity does not.

So when is something an invention? Obviously it must be new, but if I throw paint at a piece of paper , then I’ve created something new while not something inventive. It must be new in the sense that it has novelty and utility. Unlike creativity, inventiveness seems to require the creation of a tool of some sort that others can use. Invention can somehow be disassociated from creativity in the sense that one can slog one’s way to an invention (or utility creation) without the flash of inspiration and imagination that is associated with creativity. One can create an invention simply by trying something over and over again until something works. This would not be a creative process. Nor would it be an innovation.

Or is this all wrong? I have a suspicion—no, I’m sure—that there are inconsistencies in these arguments and some of the statements are outright wrong. Which ones, I’m not sure. But it certainly is worth thinking about, and it definitely makes for a great dinner discussion.

Comments

[north pacific costa rica beach]

I have a watercolor painting entitled "Meissen" and dated June 1st,
(18)'99. It is a picture of a town, which I assume is the town
Meissen, Germany. It is signed with stylized initials, E M T. Who is
the artist and what is the value of his paintings? The painting is
beautiful and is matted with a gold gilt matte board and a gold carved
frame. It is in excellent condition.
Thank you

[generic cialis]

Isn't all art and beauty in the eye of the beholder? If I think Magritte, Dix, Van Gogh, Monet, and Raphael are great and Harring, Pollock, and Warhol are totally over-rated, how is my opinion worth any less than someone who has taken lots of art appreciating and art history classes?
\
Who gets to determine what is great and important art and what isn't?

[hairy pussy]

Or is this all wrong? I have a suspicion—no, I’m sure—that there are inconsistencies in these arguments and some of the statements are outright wrong. Which ones, I’m not sure. But it certainly is worth thinking about, and it definitely makes for a great dinner discussion.

[ffxiv gil]

Or is this all wrong? I have a suspicion—no, I’m sure—that there are inconsistencies in these arguments and some of the statements are outright wrong. Which ones, I’m not sure. But it certainly is worth thinking about, and it definitely makes for a great dinner discussion.

[coach purses]

Your blog is wonderful. I think more people need to read blogs like this. It's pretty much impressive to me. Looking forward to another great article.

[costa rica best investment]

Costa Rica is an excellent country to invest in real estate its economy is very stable, being a peaceful country and have their exuberant nature makes it much more attractive to invest

[viagra online]

Hello. Yesterday I was referring to large number of blog about this subject. Nice great content your blog, very useful for the work I do. Let me thank the comments of others who participate in this blog because it serves to instruct better about it. Great job and again thank you very much excellent info. beautiful!! I'm usually more of a modern, minimalist person, but these are so quaint and cute.

[LV Monogram Canvas]

Many Romanies do not even get that far.