By Eugene Gorny
Goldsmiths College, University of London
Presentation at Oxford Internet Institute
August 7, 2003
(An expanded version)
The main objectives of my research are:
To accomplish this end, the following steps will be made:
The following theoretical problems will be discussed:
There is a vast research literature on both creativity and cyberculture and (much less on creativity in cyberculture). While the structural properties of the new media and the procedures of creative work have been thoroughly described in the framework of formal analysis (Manovich 2001), the dynamic aspect of social and individual creativity in the digital media, including the internet, has received far less attention.
The third component of my thesis - Russian cyberculture, is practically unexplored. There are no works in English and other European languages on this subject apart from interviews with some prominent figures of the Russian internet and journal articles on particular events that for some reason attracted international attention. The most fortunate is Russian online literature that has been investigated by Henrike Schmidt, a German scholar working at Lotman-Institute, University of Bohum, who created an online collaborative project Sphärentexte (Schmidt 2003) dedicated to the study of Russian net-literature and published a number of articles on the subject.
Research on cyberculture in the Russian language is also scant. In contrast to the situation in the West, where "[p]rofessional societies and degree-granting programs devoted to digital communication have steadily increased" (Barrett 2001: 13), in Russia the internet has not been considered as a subject worth of academic study until the very recently. However, the academic research in the internet culture in Russia is usually below criticism because it is made, as a rule, by people who have never participated in the actual cyberculture and drawn their knowledge on the subject mostly from outdated Western literature.
[Main sources] The issues of cyberculture have been considered more adequately in online and print publication dedicated to the internet and written by those actually involved in the cyberculture processes. Such publications as Zhurnal.ru, The Evening Internet, The Internet Magazine, The Internet World, and Net Culture section in Russian Journal can provide a great deal of both information and reflection on these processes. However, these writings are not academic in their nature and they often share the usual limitations of the journalist approach, such as superficiality, partiality, overgeneralization, and hasty conclusion. Therefore, as a rule, they can be used only as primary sources on the level with other meaning-producing practices on the internet.
Since I was involved in the development of and reflection on cyberculture in Russia over several years and produced a number of works on the subject, I shall also rely on my previous research. Among them the most important are a collection of biographies of the prominent creative figures of the Russian internet or "Russian cyberelite" (Gorny and Sherman 1999) ; A Chronicle of the Russian Internet: 1990-1999 (Gorny 2000b) that systematically describes significant events in the history of the Russian internet during the first decade of its development; and The Internet and Cyberculture in Russia (Gorny 2000a), an edited collection of articles by various authors.
Other important sources include an online project Nethistory.ru under direction of Dmitri Ivanov, the declared aim of which is to collect information relating to the history of the Russian internet, and the materials for a popular book on Russian internet culture, which was being written in online collaboration during 2001 and which has never been published. However, all this material can be used only as a primary source for reflection in the light of the problem of evolution of creativity in cyberculture that have never been formulated before.
My research consists of three intertwined but nonetheless separate themes - creativity, cyberculture, and the development of the former in the Russian version of the latter - which constitute the three parts of the entire thesis.
In what follows, I shall give a brief overview of these chapters.
[Definition of creativity] Creativity is a complex concept. As Ochse (1992: 2) notes "'creativity' means different things to different people - even to different psychologists. Indeed it seems that .creativity. means different things even to the same person, and that some writers are happy to ignore the distinctions between their various conceptions of creativity - leaping blithely to conclusions about one type of creativity on the basis of facts relating to another".
However, the definitions of creativity found in modern research literature, regardless various conceptual divergences between them, share two common elements: novelty (originality, unexpectedness) and value (appropriateness, significance, usefulness).
Sample definitions: 'What do we mean by creative work? Like most definitions of creativity, ours involves novelty and value: The creative product must be new and must be given value according to some external criteria' (Gruber and Wallace 1999: 94). 'A creative idea is one that is both original and appropriate for the situation in which it occurs' (Martindale 1999: 137). 'Creativity from the Western perspective can be defined as the ability to produce work that is novel and appropriate' (Lubart 1999: 339). 'Creativity occurs when a person makes a change in a domain, a change that will be transmitted over time' (Csikszentmihalyi 1999).
[Aspects of creativity] Theories of creativity usually focus on one of its aspect:
System approach that defines creativity as a process at the interaction of individual, social and cultural factors is used as a methodological foundation in my research.
[Creativity in post-industrial society] The issues of creativity have become crucial for any society that has overcome the boundaries of the industrial system and entered into a post-industrial state of development. The main characteristics of post-industrial society, the formation of which is traced to the 1960s, are the radical intensification of scientific and technological progress, the reduction of significance of material production that is expressed in the decrease of its share in the gross national product, the development of service and information sectors, the increased role of research and innovations, and the emergence of a new social class of intellectuals, experts and technocrats (Bell 1973).
Post-industrial society has been described as a new social formation that, as the term suggested, overcame industrial means of production as well as such phenomena correlating with it and described by Marx as private property, market economy, and exploitation (Masuda 1981; Stonier 1983; Touraine 1974; Frankel 1987; Gorz 1982; Hage and Powers 1992; Rose 1991).
The objective component of post-industrial society includes the shift from material production to the tertiary sector, transition from mass production to the production of customized or unique products, and the radical change of organizational structure.
The subjective component includes the increasing dependence of society on the creative potential of its members. Creativity has become the essential factor for both the productive process and the consumption of its results because they require knowledge and developed skills to cope with new information in a creative way. What is yet more important is the essential change in motivation and character of human activity.
[From labour to creativity] This change in the motivational structure of activity has been generally described in terms of transition from labour to creativity.
Labour, which is the main form of activity in the industrial society, is forced by the external necessity confined by the limits of satisfaction of the material needs of men. As such, it is governed by extrinsic or outward motivation and serves as a mechanism of alienation of people from the world and themselves.
Creativity, on the contrary, is a form of activity in which the intrinsic or inward motivation is realized and which is stimulated not by the necessity of satisfaction of immediate physiological or social needs but rather by the need for perfection of the personality and its abilities. As such, creativity is a means of elimination of the phenomenon of alienation that pervaded industrial society.
The term "post-material" was coined (Inglehart 1977) to designate the motivation that is directed to self-realization and freedom rather than to material and social goals. The increasing domination of "post-material" motivation in post-industrial society has had a deep impact upon the entire system of social relationships, including economic, political, and cultural relationships. The role of intrinsic motivation and creativity in the formation of the new social order have been discussed by many authors from various perspectives (Inozemtsev 2000).
This conception of eliminating alienated labour through creativity can be traced back to Marcuse.s works, especially his Eros and Civilization (Marcuse 1955). However, in the theory of post-industrial society it has been posited as an accomplished fact rather than a project for the future.
[Information society] Since the 1960s the theory of information society has begun to develop (Machlup 1962). It has been a reaction to the growing role of computers and communication technologies in the life of society. This theory maintained that information and knowledge has become a governing factor determining the process of social change and that they have replaced labour in the new social order to denote which such terms as "information society", "knowledge society", "knowledgeable society", "network society" and so forth have been used.
The concept of information society (and its analogues) was actively developed in the 1980s and 1990s and still remains one of the popular ways of thinking about modern society . in academia as well as on the policy-making level (Castells 1997; Castells 2001; Castells 1998; Castells 1996; Castells and Himanen 2002; Machlup 1962; Machlup 1983; Machlup 1984; Porat and Rubin 1978; Masuda 1981; Stonier 1983; Katz 1988; Sakaiya 1991).
The theory of information society is sometimes regarded as a part of the theory of post-industrial society that concentrates on specific aspects of the new social order such as the role of information technologies and tend to abstract from others aspects of modern society (Inozemtsev 2000).
[Conflicting systems of values] However, the information society itself is not a unitary phenomenon: it includes different, sometimes conflicting ideologies and systems of values.
In the recent book by Pekka Himanen (Himanen 2001), who develops Castells's fundamental concept of the network society, two axiological paradigms of the "Age of Information" are opposed: the Protestant ethics, which was conceptualized in the early 20th century by Max Weber (Weber 1992) and which is still at work, and the "hacker ethic" which apply not only to computer and internet culture but has also more universal significance.
The basic values of the Protestant ethics are money, work, optimality, flexibility, stability, determinacy and result accountability.
To these the author opposes the seven values of the hacker ethic (first described by Levy 1984/2001), which are passion, that is, the intrinsic interest that brings energy and joy to activity; freedom in lifestyle and in the rhythm of creative work; work ethic, which meld passion with freedom, money ethic, which does not regard money as value in itself but uses it to motivate activity with the goals of social worth and openness; nethic or the attitude towards networks which is defined by the values of activity and caring that means concern for others as an end in itself and, finally, creativity, that is, .the imaginative use of one.s own abilities, the surprising continuous surpassing of oneself, and the giving the world of a genuinely valuable new contribution. (Himanen 2001: 141).
Although Himanen does not provide much evidence and the strict opposition between the two ethics seems metaphysical, it actually exemplifies a productive way of thinking about the human condition in the modern world. However, his binary scheme can be developed into a more complex model showing the relationship between various systems of values, one of them (corresponding to "Hacker ethic"), being applied to ICT, constitute what I call cyberculture.
[Definition of cyberculture] There is no generally accepted definition of cyberculture. The key topics in cyberculture studies usually include virtuality, community and identity, as well as such derivative subjects as embodiment/disembodiment, cyborgs, cybersex, self(government) and sub/countercultures that take place in "cyberspace".
One of the problems with defining cyberculture is cultural differences (for example, "cyberculture" in Russia has a different frame of reference than in the West - as well as "culture" itself).
Therefore, I use "cyberculture" as an analytical construct or a meta-term, i.e. as a term of my own thinking and thinking of others about human dimension of information and communication technologies.
The formal definition run as follows:
Cyberculture is a creative activity in the digital media, based on the intrinsic motivation and principles of interaction and sharing.
Its formal poles are abstract theoretical thinking, which aim is knowledge (philosophy), and self-sufficient creative act, which aim is pleasure (play).
It is based on the idea that ICT is a mean of realization and perfection of human potential - both on the individual and social levels.
Informal definition is using computers "just for fun" - the title of Linus Torvalds's autobiography (Torvalds and Diamond 2001).
[Locating cyberculture: Four discourses about ICT]
Cyberculture is considered as one of the four typical discourses applied to digital technologies. Theses are discources of creativity, authority, business, and consumption, each representing a certain system of ideas, values, practices and motivations. The main value of cyberculture is creativity and it is motivated by the drives of play and self-actualization. Other types of discources are dominated by different motivations, such as power, wealth, and consumption.
System of values -> Discourse -> Practice |
Dominant motivation |
Agents |
Authority |
Power, control, manipulation |
Government |
Business |
Profit, wealth, manipulation |
Corporations |
Consumption |
Consumption of material and immaterial goods (entertainment) |
Consumers |
Creativity |
Play, self-actualization, sharing |
Creators |
Cyberculture, as any creative activity, involves production. The table below shows its relationship to other types of discourses/practices.
Motivations / productivity |
Non-productive |
Productive |
Extrinsic |
Authority |
Business |
Intrinsic |
Consumption |
Creativity |
I propound a hypothesis that there is no specific academic discourse about ICT (the difference is rather in style than in basic premises). As a rule, particular researches adopt (consciously or unconsciously) one of the discourses with their underlying motivations and systems of values.
[Ideology of cyberculture]
Historically, cyberculture has been a configuration of explicit and implicit .unit-ideas., many of which can be found in preceding ideological systems but which were applied to ICT. The most important ideas are as follows:
[Historical limits of cyberculture]
I consider cyberculture diachronically and demonstrate how the initial configuration of ideas has been changed under the influence of other types of discourses and finally reached the stage of dissolution. I argue that that cyberculture - both as a discourse and as practice - is a historically limited phenomenon, the life cycle of which has reached the end. Since cyberculture has become a fact of history rather than a living process, it can be studied by historical methods as any other phenomenon of the past.
I argue that cyberculture is a historically limited phenomenon in a double sense. As a system of ideas, it represented a way of thinking about technology that has been gradually eroded and finally replaced by other ways of thinking. This can be explained in the framework of immanent evolution of ideas, which is carried out through discussion, and as a consequence of practical testing these ideas and correlating them with the processes that take place in the field to which they apply.
As a practice, cyberculture served as a field of experimentations with new communication technologies and possibilities of their practical application. In the course of these experiments, optimal decisions have been gradually found which then become stabilized and used for utilitarian rather than creative ends. ICT itself has lost the quality of novelty and become habitual and banal.
Due to the lack of principal innovation in the field of communication technologies since the emergence of the internet and World Wide Web, the opportunities for creativity in the digital sphere have been progressively narrowed over time and ousted from the centre (creation of resources of common value practices in the digital sphere, such as participation in online communities) to the periphery (for example, information arts (Wilson 2002) practiced by the few).
The most important external factors that lead cyberculture to the end are commercialization, stabilization and commodification:
The internet, as it happens with any realms of creativity, seems to become a domain .where all the basic questions have been solved and which, therefore, appears to be boring. (Csikszentmihalyi 1999: 320).
[Evolution of cyberculture] This observation seems to call into question the postulate about the universal role of creativity in the post-industrial/information society that has been discussed above.
In fact, the immaterial production can be as routine, dull and alienating a labour as the production of industrial goods. The same is true about consumption of the information product: the creative use of ideas is much rarer than the passive acceptance of images, and information society tends to converge with the society of spectacle.
Cyberspace, which was initially conceived as a return to "Eden (before the Fall)" (Benedikt 1992/2000: 38) or an advance to "a civilization of Mind" (Barlow 1996), has been gradually transformed into utility and commodity. The initial creative impulse has been exhausted in a few years and the possibility of creativity in cyberspace has been drastically reduced or, at least, moved to other fields and acquired new forms.
The evolution of cyberculture, as I see it, shows that creativity is not a constant characteristic of modern society (or any society) but rather a dynamic variable depending on a variety of factors. It seems that the analysis of these factors can help to understand better the nature of creativity as a social phenomenon.
As for intrinsic motivation, which defines creativity on the personal level, its realization, as the case of cyberculture seems to proves, depends on the characteristics of the particular field where it takes place, which are also changeable over time. If even the creative drive in a person remains the same, the opportunity of its realization is different in a field that is new and uncharted and in the same field when it is settled and cultivated. In the latter case, the creative individual might content himself with a minor creativity concerning perfecting some details or he will be forced to seek after a new land where the realization of his creative potential would not be restricted or restricted in a lesser degree. Another variant of such a situation is when a person has reached perfection in his field. Here again he will be forced to move, if he wants to develop rather than to repeat himself.
Although these considerations may seem trivial, they escape for some reason the attention of theorists of the .creative society.. Thus, regardless of the vast literature on cyberculture, there are no significant works that would treat the issues of creativity in cyberspace as a dynamic process which characteristics are changing in the course of time rather than as a mere production of something original which is always performed in the same way. In my research, I shall try to fill this gap, using Russian cyberculture as a case study.
In the main chapter of my research, I shall consider the history of Russian cyberculture as a system of creative forms . both synchronically and diachronically.
[Defining the subject of study: "Internets" vs. the Internet] Though the Internet is a global communication system governed by common technical standards, it is obviously divided into national "internets" (Leibov) which are culturally and linguistically specific.
"It's said that the Internet has no borders, but one is obvious. The border of language. Languages trace new maps across the Internet...I'm not sure how it can be visualised at this moment...I can't really talk about the other communities, but the Russian Internet isn't just servers, providers, authors and artists situated in Russia. It's a community of people speaking, writing and thinking in Russian. They live in America, Israel, Germany, Russia, Australia, the former Soviet Republics... So, in this case you can really talk about new territory; without old, but with new borders." (Lialina 2001)
In my research, I shall try to show the specific of Russian cyberculture in its connection with particularities of Russian culture at large, including political, economical and social aspects.
[The evolution of Russian cyberculture: Preliminary notes]
Russian internet as a cultural phenomenon initially was created by a relatively small group of young people most part of whom physically were abroad (in the US, Israel, Germany, Estonia, Finland, etc.).
They had a high level of creative drive and passion, access to the new technology and spare time to play with it. They considered the internet as a hobby and a toy rather than work.
These individuals felt their unity and energetically collaborated, making up a kind of creative cyber-elite as a group opposed to passive users.
In a few years, they managed to create successful projects of different types (media, online services, digital libraries, art, and entertainment).
Through continuous experimentations, they had found forms that were socially accepted and became commonly used and reproduced by others.
Most creators of Russian internet culture have overcome their marginal social status, moved to Moscow as the financial and cultural centre of Russia, reached high social positions and converted their creative experience into money and fame. Now, some of them continue to work on the internet as experts or top-level managers. Most part left and turned their energy to other realms, such as media, politics, business, education and research.
The new generations that have come on the internet, seem to have few opportunities for invention and major creativity.
The internet changed society but it has changed itself. It has lost its relative autonomy from the rest of culture and become an extension of the real world.
Cyberculture, based on the opposition between the online and offline worlds, and thought of as an expression of the specific values of one of these worlds, has lost its raison d.être and reached a stage of stagnation and disintegration. A shift of paradigm is required to provoke a next burst of creativity - in the digital media or elsewhere.
However, one can easily find out that creative activity on the internet did not disappear. Its forms as well as some of its ideological foundations have been changed but the creative drive has not been exhausted. To designate the new stage of digital creativity I introduce a meta-term Cyberculture-2.
If early cyberculture, or Cyberculture-1, was a dualistic ideology based on the strict opposition between the online and offline, then its contemporary form, or Cyberculture-2, is a holistic worldview, in which the online is inseparable of the offline, and the virtual serves as an instrument of real.
However, Cyberculture 1 and 2 share a common set of values, such as creativity, freedom, sharing, voluntary collective production, which allows to argue that they are not two different phenomena but stages in development of the same phenomenon.
Examples of creative forms in which Cyberculture-2 is realized include Open source movement, collaborative content projects, blogs, and P2P systems.
Bailin, Sharon. 1988. Achieving extraordinary ends: an essay on creativity. Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Barlow, John Perry. 1996. "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace." Web page. Available at http://www.eef.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html.
Barrett, Edward. 2001. Series Foreword. Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias. Editor Peter Ludlow. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: The NIT Press.
Barron, F. 1968. Creativity and personal freedom. Princeton, NJ: D. van Nostrand.
--- 1988. Putting creativity to work. The Nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. Editor Robert J. Sternberg, 76-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, David. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York.
Benedikt, Michael. 2000. Cyberspace: First steps. The cybercultures reader. Editors David Bell, and Barbara M. Kennedy, 29-44. London: Routledge.
Brown, Paul Lockwood, and Jacqueline Byrd. 2003. The innovation equation: building creativity and risk taking in your organization. Practicing Organization Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer c2003.
Bundy, Wayne Miles. 2002. Innovation, creativity, and discovery in modern organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books 2002.
Castells, Manuel. 1996. The rise of the network society. Malden, Mass.; Oxford: Blackwell.
--- 1997. The power of identity. Massachusetts; Oxford: Blackwell.
--- 1998. End of millennium. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
--- 2001. The Internet galaxy: reflections on the Internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, Manuel, and Pekka Himanen. 2002. The information society and the welfare state: the Finnish model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ceserani, Jonne, and Peter Greatwood. 1996. Innovation & creativity. The Fast Track MBA Series. London: Kogan Page 1995.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1988. Society, culture, and person: a system view of creativity. The Nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. Editor Robert J. Sternberg, 325-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--- 1996. Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
--- 1999. Implications of a System Perspective for the Study of Creativity. Handbook of creativity. (Editor) Robert J. Sternberg, 313-225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999.
Curran, James, and Myung-Jin Park. 2000. De-Westernizing media studies. London: Routledge.
DeGraff, Jeff, and Katherine A. Lawrence. 2002. Creativity at work: developing the right practices to make innovation happen. University of Michigan Business School Management Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dray, W. H. 1964. Philosophy of history. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Elwes, Anneke. 2000. Creativity works. London: Profile.
Escobar, Arturo. 2000. Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the anthropology of cyberculture. The cybercultures reader. Editors David Bell, and Barbara M. Kennedy, 57-76. London: Routledge.
Ford, Cameron. 1999. Corporate Culture. Encyclopedia of Creativity. Editors Mark A. Runco, and Steven R. Pritzker, 385-93. Vol. 1. San Diego, Calif.; London: Academic Press.
Frankel, D. 1987. The Post-Industrial Utopians. Madison, WI.
Gauntlett, David, Editor. 2000. web.Studies: Rewiring Media Studies for the Digital Age. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardiner, Patrick. 1955. The nature of historical explanation. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Gorny, Eugene. Ed. 2000a. "Internet i kiberkul'tura v Rossii: Sbornik statej [The Internet and cyberculture in Russia: A reader]." Web page. Available at http://www.zhurnal.ru/staff/gorny/texts/icr_contents.html.
--- 2000b. "Letopis' russkogo Interneta: 1990-1999 [A Chronicle of the Russian Internet: 1990-1999]." Web page. Available at http://www.zhurnal.ru/staff/gorny/texts/ru_let/.
--- 1994. "What is semiotics?" Web page. Available at http://www.zhurnal.ru/staff/gorny/english/semiotic.htm.
Gorny, Eugene and Sherman, Aleksander. 1999. "Infokratiya, ili Konets otchuzhdennogo truda [Infocracy, or The End of Alienated Labour]." Web page. Available at http://www.guelman.ru/vse_obozrev/gorniy.html.
Gorz, A. 1982. Farewell to the Working Class: An Essay on Post-Industrial Socialism. London.
Hage, J., and Ch. H. Powers. 1992. Post-Industrial Lives: Roles and Relationships in the 21st Century. Newbury Park, CA.
Hesselbein, Frances, and Rob Johnston. 2002. On creativity, innovation, and renewal : a leader to leader guide. San Francisco; Great Britain: Jossey-Bass c2002.
Himanen, Pekka. 2001. The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. London: Vintage.
Inozemtsev, V. L. 2000. Sovremennoe postindustrial'noe obshchestvo: priroda, protivorechiya, perspektivy [Modern post-industrial society: its nature, contradictions, perspectives]. Moscow: Logos.
Jaques, E. 1970. Work, Creativity and Social Justice. New York.
Jolly, Adam. 2003. Innovation: harnessing creativity for business growth. London: Kogan Page c2003.
Katz, R. L. 1988. The Information Society: An International Perspective. New York.
Levy, Steven. 2001. Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution. 2nd ed. London: Penguin Books.
Lovejoy, Arthur O. 1936. The great chain of being: A study in the history of ideas. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
--- 1948. Essays in the history of ideas. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.
Machlup, F. 1962. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton.
--- 1984. Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution and Economic Significance. Vol. I - III. Princeton, NJ.
Machlup, F. Mansfield U., Editors. 1983. The Study of Information. New York.
Mamardashvili, M. K., and A. M. Pyatigorskij. 1984. Simvol i soznanie (metafizicheskie razmyshleniya o soznanii, simvolike i yazyke) [Symbol and consciousness: Metaphysical meditations on consciousness, symbolic and language]. Ierusalim.
Manovich, Lev. 2001. The Language of New Media. Leonardo, ed. Roger F. Malina. Cambridge, Mass. - London: The MIT Press.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1955. Eros and civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
Masuda, Y. 1981. The Information Society as Post-Industrial Society. Washington, DC.
Ochse, R. 1990. Before the gates of excellence the determinants of creative genius. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Peiperl, Maury. 2002. Career creativity: explorations in the remaking of work. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2002.
Porat, M., and M. Rubin. 1978. The Information Economy: Development and Measurement. Washington, DC.
Robinson, Alan G., and Sam Stern. 1997. Corporate creativity : how innovation and improvement actually happen. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers c1997.
Rose, M. A. 1991. The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial: A Critical Analysis. Cambridge.
Sakaiya, T. 1991. The Knowledge-Value Revolution or A History of the Future. Tokyo - New York.
Schmidt, Henrike. "Sphärentexte: Blicke in das russisch(sprachig)e literarische Internet." Web page. Available at http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/lirsk/sphaeren/index.htm.
Simonton, Dean Keith. 1984. Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
--- 1999. Creativity from a Historiometric Perspective. Handbook of creativity. (Editor) Robert J. Sternberg, 116-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999.
Sternberg, Robert J. 1999. Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999.
Sherwood, Dennis. 2001. Smart things to know about innovation and creativity. Oxford: Capstone 2001.
Stonier, T. 1983. The Wealth of Information. A Profile of the Post-Industrial Economy. London.
Tardif, Twila Z., and Robert J. Sternberg. 1988. Society, culture, and person: a system view of creativity. The Nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. Editor Robert J. Sternberg, 429-40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Torvalds, Linus, and David Diamond. 2001. Just for Fun: The Story of Accidental Revolutionary. New York - London: Texere.
Touraine, A. 1974. The Post-Industrial Society. Tomorrow's Social History: Classes, Conflicts and Culture in the Programmed Society. New York.
Weber, Max. 1992. Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Routledge.
Williams, Theo Stephan. 2002. Creative Utopia: 12 ways to realize total creativity. Cincinnati, Ohio; Great Britain: How Design Books.
Williams, Wendy M., and Lana T. Yang. 1999. Organizational Creativity. Handbook of creativity. Editor Robert J. Sternberg, 373-91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999.
Wilson, Stephen. 2002. Information Arts: Intersection of Art, Science, and Technology. Cambridge, Mass. - London, England: The MIT Press.
Send your comments to
gorny@list.ru
| viewsonic viewpad 7 | EF-russia: îáó÷åíèå çà ðóáåæîì ïîäðîáíàÿ èíôîðìàöèÿ íà ñàéòå. | Óíèêàëüíîå òåðìîáåëüå ñ õèòîôàéáåðîì. |
| Íîâûå ìîäåëè: êîíüêè õîêêåéíûå â Ñïîðòìàñòåðå! | Êà÷åñòâåííûé ïåðåâîä ñ ðóññêîãî íà àíãëèéñêèé â êðàòêèé ñðîê. |