If you can determine the degree of novelty, practical value and cultural significance of the product of your activity, you will find a way to objectively evaluate your creativity.

Measuring creativity in drawings or paintings is a highly subjective task, as creativity is akin to a fingerprint - unique to each individual. Unlike quantifying like numbers or words, creativity cannot be objectified or standardized. It's a distinctive expression that varies from person to person, making it challenging to quantify or evaluate using traditional assessment methods. Instead, we can approach creativity as a holistic and qualitative aspect, appreciating the diversity and originality that each artist brings to their work.

If measuring creativity were a subjective assessment, then Leonardo's Last Supper would be seen as an illustration of a friendly dinner. Is Leonardo's fingerprint on this fresco so important for an objective assessment of this work?

Alessandro Mac-Nelly Alessandro, You have the entire human life essence from the very first neanderthal (maybe earlier too) that developes and changes the way we see, perceive, think an value. At best all we have is what we think to be true at this moment in time. Our sensibilities, our tools and our cultures change with each new insight and discovery. And with each new discover we find our newly formed ideas and analysis leads us to revise and change. You may, at best, create (or propose) an objective analysis for creativity...but it will rely of all of life to stay the same. Please study this. But Please know you are but one of thousands of people who mis-understood the essence of creativity and tried to make it into an algorithm. In addition, the question you should be asking is what will be gained by this. Will it encourage deeper and more extensive evidence of creativity across the human spectrum or reduce it. I suggest creativity is a very wide spectrum of what it is to be alive. And at best you might capture a nano section of the spectrum. And miss the "forrest-for-the-trees".

Lee Clawson, your point about creativity being a dynamic and evolving phenomenon is well-taken. I agree that reducing it to an algorithm risks oversimplifying its essence. However, do you think there’s value in using computational tools to identify patterns or trends in creativity over time, even if they can’t fully capture its depth? For example, could analyzing shifts in artistic styles or techniques help us understand broader cultural or cognitive changes, without necessarily quantifying creativity itself? I’d love to hear your thoughts on how we might balance these approaches.

Dear Volodymyr Durmanov your emphasis on novelty, practical value, and cultural significance as key dimensions of creativity is compelling. I agree that these criteria provide a strong foundation for objective evaluation. However, do you think these dimensions could be quantified in a way that minimizes subjectivity? For example, could computational analysis of visual elements (e.g., composition, color use) or machine learning comparisons to a dataset of existing works help assess novelty, while cultural significance might be inferred from historical impact or reception data? I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on how we might operationalize these dimensions in practice.

Alessandro Mac-Nelly Alessandro, the ResearchGate "verify your human" activated while I was writing and, in turn, deleted my post. -- When I get passed how much I hate this system - I'll get back to you.

Hello Alessandro, in my opinion the creativity in drawing is shown the most in influence of the imagination of the persons who are watching the piece of art. So, that means if the art can inspire our our manner of thinking. The question is: could we do the algorithmic aproach of our imagination and sensitivity? In Japan after tsunami was made the software to recognize the emotions after the face "Empath". Why not mesure the face reactions on the moment of watching the piece of art? It could be possible to do thise parametres, the most important points of micromovements of the face muscles. What do you do about it?

Dear, Alessandro Mac-Nelly

I am glad that you are interested in my previous answer.

I will try to answer your questions in my purely subjective way.

Note: explanations are in brackets

Question 1 - Do you think that these (qualitative) measurements (in human creativity) can be quantitatively assessed in such a way as to minimize subjectivity (reduce the influence of personality)?

Answer 1. It is impossible to reduce subjectivity in an objective assessment of a drawing since the process of informational appropriation or presentation is deeply individual.

Explanation. Suppose you have created a program called "Possible Drawings by Pablo Picasso" based on collected iconographic material available on the Internet. It allows you to make a portrait of each person in a manner like the famous artist. You can describe these products quantitatively and qualitatively (style, composition, technique). You could have a copyright on your program and could achieve commercial success in its implementation, but these drawings are not original works of Picasso.

In copies there are images of the products of creativity but the act of creativity is not recorded. This allows you to distinguish a fake from an original.

Question 2 (part 1). Сan computational analysis of visual elements (e.g., composition, use of color) or machine learning comparison with a dataset of existing works helps to assess novelty?.

Answer 2. Yes, it can, because the knowledge of the expert determines the degree of novelty.

Question 3 (part 2). Can computational analysis of visual elements (e.g., composition, use of color) or machine learning comparison with a dataset of existing works be derived from historical data on influence or perception?

Answer 3. Of course, it can, because subjective perception is embedded in every historical act of creativity, presented in an objective ideal world of artifacts, reflecting the degree of consciousness of people.

Yours,

VD