Innovation is necessarily creative while unique is not.

i.e. Something or someone that is innovative is creative; something/someone that is unique is not necessarily creative but rather need only be the only one of its kind to be deemed 'unique'

Innovation refers to what the Greeks called "poiesis," the act of bringing something from non-being into being (Plato, "The Symposium). Prior to the authorship of this being, it simply did not exist. Uniqueness means the quality of being one of a kind. There is no reference in this word to creativity as such. An example of an artist who is unique but possibly not innovative-- at least most critics think he is not (although I would disagree)-- is the French composer Maurice Ravel. He has an unmistakable, typical melody, certainly unique. Yet it stems from multiple sources and is not creation ex nihilo. In theory it is easy to distinguish innovation from uniqueness. In practice it is difficult, because no cultural innovator starts from zero. He always starts from a pre-established context with which he establishes a dialogue.

Hi Mitali,

I would personally disagree with Nelson's view above, but would certainly agree with Jennifer's (above).

See: http://creativity.netslova.ru/Innovation.html

Sorry Nelson, not meaning to be disagreeable here - but Plato's idea of creativity from over 2000 years ago, and the current scientific definition of it, are radically at odds.

(See also: http://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/storyality-30-abandon-aristotle/)

Mitali, if you want the accepted scientific view on this, from the point of view of the current scientific research on Creativity, I'd agree with Jennifer above - and say no, `unique' isn't necessarily innovative.

Maybe take a look at a few of these blog posts (ie #6 to #14) for official definitions of and issues in Creativity...

http://storyality.wordpress.com/an-index-to-this-blog/

ie The commonly-accepted definition of Creative (which includes `innovative') is "novel but appropriate" but -- that creative artifact (ie that meme as per Csikszentmihalyi 1996 - ie - that idea, process or product, eg say, an artwork, or a scientific discovery/innovation) has to be selected by the Field of `gatekeepers'/experts, for inclusion into the Domain of `works judged creative' in that Domain.

Then we get into p-Creativity and h-Creativity - as per Boden (personal-Creativity and historical-Creativity)... Someone can be personally innovative (can say: eat their breakfast upside-down, or say, wear their clothes backwards) but unless the Field acknowledges this, then - they are probably just: unique. (Possibly also: eccentric.)

An innovation usually has to be recognized to `solve a problem' by a field of experts. This is more obvious in the sciences, but in the Arts/Humanities also becomes clear when you investigate CPF and CPS (Creative Problem Finding and Creative Problem Solving.) eg Picasso: How do I express this new/innovative idea I have about Cubism, using African masks, as inspiration? Or say, John Cage in music: How do I express/realize this idea I have that silence is as important as (or even more important than) sound? or say Joyce in prose: How do I get across this `stream of consciousness' idea, reflecting more an `inner life' of a character and how people think, rather than just this old plot-driven `outward action' melodrama stuff (and - how can i be extra-tricky and work in The Odyssey of Homer, and the organs of the body, as well...)

Everyone is certainly unique (as funny as that sounds... ie That reminds me of the Monty Python scene from Life Of Brian "We are all unique!" (a lone voice from the back of the crowd: "I'm not!") ), but clearly - not everyone is innovative.

Everyone's work is unique (on a microscopic level, if need be) but - not everyone's work `solves problems' that the field of experts recognize, and then select.

Which all goes back to: creativity and innovation being `novel and appropriate' (`novel' meaning new, fresh, unique, different, but - it also has to be `appropriate' to the problem/question/matrix at hand. Otherwise - it's just surreal/off-topic/too weird/out-there.)

I hope this helps, but anyway those StoryAlity blog posts above certainly have leads to works by the key (scientific) researchers on creativity and innovation...

eg M Csikszentmihalyi, RK Sawyer, DK Simonton, M Boden, RJ Sternberg, etc

And Eugene Gorny's `creativity definitions' site in general, you may find helpful as well.

http://creativity.netslova.ru/

Hope all this helps somehow. (And - sorry Nelson if I seem disagreeable but I have serious issues with Romantic notions of Creativity. But then the latter part of your comment seems to take the opposite view to the earlier Greek definitions section... which - is confusing... I agree totally with the 2nd part of your comment Nelson! I think it is great. But - Plato is a bad guide to creativity. Creativity studies over the past 50 years since JP Guildfords speech to the APA on Creativity have totally reviewed and overturned Plato's conception of it. )

Also, I don't think Ravel is unique... ie Unique compared to: what exactly? We don't know all the exact influences Ravel had, and also - there may have been other artists/composers who either he was influenced by (or - even copied himself) or vice-versa... Musicians/composers who composed in the same style as Ravel but never became as famous/known. Having said all that, I love Ravel's work. (well, I love `Bolero'.) Call me corny. It was great in that movie `10'. Not that `10' was great, itself. I don't personally think it was. But my opinion on that isn't important.

Stanley Kubrick, in the Ciment interviews points out he feels it's a mistake in Western culture to have such an emphasis on unique/novel/different. ie You need to work fairly closely in the context of and with respect to what has gone before/the convention.

My research on the top 20 RoI films shows they are all just combinations of very old, very popular ideas. Fine to be totally unique/radical/different if you want to be avant-garde I guess... But it's pretty lonely, cold, and hungry out there.

Still, the mainstream (in any field) is constantly integrating: ie selecting, varying and transmitting - ideas from the avant-garde back into the mainstream.

(The evolutionary algorithm in Culture... etc etc etc)

Best

JT

Hi, Jt, I hate to be disagreeable with your disagreeability, and I appreciate your response, but I think you put too much faith in the "scientific" (physico-mathematically based) and the "social" (i.e., sociological). Is Beethoven innovative in writing the "Allegretto" of the Seventh Symphony? It acquires an ethical dimension unknown to him because of his deafness, yet is it undoubtedly an innovation. Would A. G. Bell's telephone have been an innovation even if he had not communicated its existence to Watson? I think so. Unique, eccentric, yes, but innovative. Plato's definition embraces both cases, his antiquity notwithstanding.

Marta, I agree with you about Beethoven: he innovated in the "Agnus Dei" of his B-minor Mass by deviating from the rigid wording and repeating "Give us peace," never done before, but considered part of one of the greatest Masses composed. Maurice Ravel found this piece overrated to put it mildly. Yet even he could not deny its uniqueness.