Okay I have stressed in my blog how my perception of individualistcreativity has evolved through the course. I found tons of research on creativity and innovation, both in the context of organizations and in social science in general. It hass been on creative individuals Why has it taken so long for research to emerge on the social dimensions of creativity? By social creativity, we mean, broadly speaking, any and all creative processes leading to creative products that are the result of the interaction between two or more people. In other words, creativity that involves groups and collaborations. The production of movies, musical performances (in fact, almost any performing art), the creative process in scientific laboratories, in organizations, are but a few examples of what we mean by social creativity. Such creative processes that are not confined to the workings of a lone genius—as in an isolated author, composer, or anyone else working alone, literally, in physical isolation. However, this broad definition of “social” creativity is somewhat problematic, as we shall see. There is a real philosophical question as to whether anyone—any individual human being–can really be considered isolated or “alone.” If the answer is “no,” then we have to consider whether any creative process can occur without any form of interaction or social influence. For example, can there really be such a thing as a “lone” genius? Even if somebody works in physical isolation, is she or he not part of a larger discourse, and a social creature, working with a socio-historical context and tradition? Would the concept of a “genius,” lone or otherwise, even exist without “others”. …. Great sum of the more social out look on creativity found this on http://online.sfsu.edu/~rpurser/revised/pages/CREATIVITYwam.htm. I was looking for some strays against the idividual myth of creativity which is so widely adopted
