2021
DOI: 10.2478/ctra-2021-0002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Technology as Social-Material Mediator: From Primary to Secondary Creativity and Beyond

Abstract: How might technology mediate the transition from primary creative expression to secondary creative contributions? In this paper, we address this question by expanding upon recent conceptualizations of primary and secondary creativity (Runco & Beghetto, 2019) and offer a new way to understand how technology can support creative learning and creative expression. We open by providing a conceptual overview of how technology can serve as a mediator between primary and secondary creativity. We then provide a con… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 18 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Computer technologies are often framed either as mere adjuncts to creative practice or as completely transforming creativity, leading to "digital creativity" that is in some uniform way distinct from non-digital creativity. For example Basu and Beghetto [3] build their case study of a distributed artistic practice on an ontological separation between "material" and "digital" tools. By contrast, we find support for Bødker and Klokmose's argument that such an ontological separation is not theoretically well-grounded or pragmatically useful [21].…”
Section: Implications For Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Computer technologies are often framed either as mere adjuncts to creative practice or as completely transforming creativity, leading to "digital creativity" that is in some uniform way distinct from non-digital creativity. For example Basu and Beghetto [3] build their case study of a distributed artistic practice on an ontological separation between "material" and "digital" tools. By contrast, we find support for Bødker and Klokmose's argument that such an ontological separation is not theoretically well-grounded or pragmatically useful [21].…”
Section: Implications For Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%