1. what did you find

1.1. interesting about the article?

I liked the fact that the article didn't try to argue for/against a single type of creativity or another (individual vs. social). It does a good job of showing both the need for a combination of the two methods and how we can go about implementing these methods through technology.

1.2. not interesting about the article?

I felt the part about the fish-scale model could've been stronger had it included an example. I understand the general concept behind it (often domain knowledge is not entirely contained in one mind; usually it's distributed among many), but since it was described as a contrast to the "division of labor" model (which is typically explained via an example), it's advantages could've been shown much more clearly with a contrasting example.

2. what do you consider the main message of the article?

That isn't not a matter of choosing either "individual creativity" or "social creativity", but rather a combination of the two to maximize creativity as a whole. With that understanding, we can proceed in designed technologies better suited to account for this balance rather than focusing on one or the other.

3. pick ONE of the four systems described in the article (Envisionment and Discovery Collaboratory, Caretta, Renga Creations, CodeBroker) and discuss which aspects of individual and social creativity they support!

Renga Creations - Obviously, artwork is heavily influenced by individual creativity because it's a very personal craft and interpretations can never be narrowed to black/white answers. Thus, it could be argued that this culture would be one of the most difficult to incorporate "social creativity". However, Renga is revolutionary because I provides a medium where artists, each coming in with their own distinct "individual creativities", are exposed to others, allowing their personal creativity to grow. This is because each person is influenced by their surroundings/environment. Renga gives these artists access to an environment they would not normally have access to.

4. have you encountered interesting “boundary objects?” which ones? what features made them interesting?

You could say that the EDC is a boundary object since it seems to be an object of "shared knowledge". In this case, the COI is everyone interested in the development of a public transporation system. Since there are many shareholders involved with widely varying backgrounds (city planners, residents, software designers, city officials, etc), the system abstracts the complexity of design work to a level where everyone can contribute.

5. describe the most creative activity from your OWN life and analyze the individual and social aspect of your creative act!

I can't really recall a specific activity, but more generally I remember several art projects I did in high school. Obviously, these projects were individually creative because they were based on my personal preferences (what I wanted to express at the time, how I wanted to express it, personal likes/dislikes, etc.). At the same time, these personal preferences were molded by my experiences and environments, thus you could argue that every piece of art I've created is really a result of my life experiences, not strictly my own identity.

6. which computational systems do you know which support individual and/or social creativity?

Programs like Photoshop and Dreamweaver give us a platform to explore our creativity individually. Programs like Renga allow for social creativity.