Abstract:Creativity is commonly defined as a process that leads to a novel and useful outcome (an idea, product, or expression). However, two dilemmas about this definition remain unresolved: (1) A strict application of usefulness is difficult to apply to artistic works: who decides what artwork is useful, and how it is useful? (2) The implied boundary conditions of novelty are problematic: The default perspective is that novelty has a monotonic increasing relationship with creativity, or it is categorical—i.e., novel or not. To address these dilemmas, this paper proposes a spreading activation model of creativity (SAMOC), a model built on a brain-architecture-inspired vast interconnected network of nodes, each node representing information, and assigned meanings through interaction with the environment. Nodes are linked to each other according to principles of temporal contiguity (linking objects/events in time) and similarity (linking objects/events by shared features). A node activated by attention spreads through the network through previously linked nodes. Nodes that are well connected activate each other easily, while those that are weakly connected do not. Net total activation corresponds to positive affect (e.g., pleasure), and this is proposed as an essential criteria for a creative work of art, instead of usefulness. SAMOC also predicts that creativity will be optimized at an intermediate, not extreme, level of novelty. Too much activation will occur with the activation of preexisting ideas (hence reproduction rather than creativity), and too much novelty will not produce spread of activation. The two functions (spreading activation and the novelty curve) are superposed to demonstrate this optimal novelty hypothesis. Early evidence of the hypothesis comes from the data that some great works of art were critically rejected at premiers (suggesting excessive novelty), but after sufficient repetition (and therefore linking) became suitably associated and commenced generating activation. The hypothesis has important implications for future empirical research programs on creativity, and for the definition of creativity itself.

Novelty seeking might underlie curiosity and the novelty dimension of creativity, but not the usefulness dimension

Novelty seeking is neither necessary nor sufficient for curiosity or creativity, instead both curiosity and creativity may reflect an epistemic drive

Curiosity is more than novelty seeking

Curious? The relationship between curiosity and creativity is likely NOT novelty

Ignoring the role of reiterative processing and worldview transformation leads to exaggeration of the role of curiosity in creativity

A shared novelty-seeking basis for creativity and curiosity: Response to the commentators

Creativity is motivated by novelty. Curiosity is triggered by uncertainty

Getting curiouser and curiouser about creativity: The search for a nuanced model

Beyond novelty: Learnability in the interplay between creativity, curiosity and artistic endeavours

An extension of the novelty-seeking model: Considering the plurality of novelty types and their differential interactions with memory

Aiming at Creativity and Ending up with a Range from Low‐Hanging Fruits to Foolishness: A Reflective Model of Creativity

A developmental account of curiosity and creativity

Commentary on creativity and curiosity

Question-asking as a mechanism of information seeking

The Importance of Separating Appropriateness into Impact and Feasibility for the Psychology of Creativity

Toward a causal model of curiosity and creativity

Novelty and Utility: how the arts may advance question creation in contemporary research

An exploration of how creativity, functionality, and aesthetics are related in design

Creativity Is Optimal Novelty and Maximal Positive Affect: A New Definition Based on the Spreading Activation Model

Curious and Persistent, but not Consistent: Self‐regulation Traits and Creativity

Mindfulness, curiosity, and creativity