Arthur Still · Goldsmiths (University of London) 2016 · conceptual and historical analysis · n=?

A history of creativity for future AI research

Cited 15 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Conceptual and historical analysis paper containing no empirical data; graded by design analogy.

OpenAlex W2471460161 · record verified 2026-08-28

What was done

Conceptual and historical analysis of two traditions defining creative activity: the classical Latin use of "creare" (a natural process of bringing about change) versus Jerome's Vulgate biblical concept of creation from nothing. The authors evaluated how these traditions influenced modern psychology and artificial intelligence (AI).

What was found

The abstract reports no quantitative measurements or experimental data. The authors argue that AI and psychology have primarily adopted the creation-from-nothing tradition, thereby limiting these fields to Western concepts of individualism and progress, while causing chronic conceptual confusion that could be resolved by adopting the broader, process-based classical tradition.

Why it matters

It highlights cultural and historical assumptions embedded in computational creativity definitions, arguing for a broader conceptual basis for future AI research.

Limits

The work is purely theoretical and historical with no empirical experiments, human behavioral data, or quantitative evaluation of AI systems.

Cited by