1 / 13

Computational Artistic Creativity and its Evaluation

Computational Artistic Creativity and its Evaluation. DAVID C BROWN Computer Science Department WPI, Worcester, MA 01609, USA <dcb@cs.wpi.edu>. Motivation. “What are the appropriate methods and measures to objectively verify and validate creative behavior in artificial systems?”

odysseus-grimes
Télécharger la présentation

Computational Artistic Creativity and its Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Computational Artistic Creativity and its Evaluation DAVID C BROWN Computer Science Department WPI, Worcester, MA 01609, USA <dcb@cs.wpi.edu>

  2. Motivation • “What are the appropriate methods and measures to objectively verify and validate creative behavior in artificial systems?” • Evaluation by people • Evaluation by computational system • Evaluation ofartifact • Evaluation of process

  3. Your Research Goals? • Producing creative artifacts using computational means. • Study what knowledge and reasoning might be part of process that produces creative artifacts. • Study the criteria that a person or a system might use to judge whether an item is creative or not.

  4. Your Research Goals?(continued) 4. Produce a formal theory of creativity. 5. Produce new “computational means”.

  5. Creativity Evaluation • How to judge impact of decision or quality of partial solution during synthesis? • E.g., using constraint to reduce search space • How to judge artifact (or its description)?

  6. Necessary or Helpful? • Is it necessary for system to evaluate during synthesis and/or evaluate the resulting artifact? • If not, is it helpful?

  7. Criteria? What factors are used to evaluate creativity?

  8. Examples • Besemer has 3 factors in the Creative Product Analysis Model. • Abrams has 4 ways of considering the analysis, criticism or evaluation of art.

  9. Besemer’s CPAM:Creative Product Analysis Model • Factors: Novelty, Resolution & Style • Novelty: newness • Surprising, Original • Resolution: meets needs • Logical, Useful, Valuable, Understandable • Style: refined, developed, coherent whole • Organic, Well-Crafted, Elegant

  10. Abrams • Mimetic - imitating aspects of the observable universe, but not artifact, artist or audience. • Pragmatic - the relationship between the artifact and audience, including teaching & producing emotional reactions. • Expressive - externalizing artist’s inner life. • Objective - viewing artifact in isolation. • Combinations are possible.

  11. Some Computational Challenges • Surprising: what is “normal” art? • Useful: what is purpose of the artifact? • Valuable: knowledge of art market? • Understandable: user friendly art? • Pragmatic: does it provoke emotion? • Expressive: artist’s “inner life”?

  12. Overall Challenge A Computational Artistic Creativity system must be able to evaluate its own output for creativity, and be able to evaluate its decisions and partial solutions for creative potential.

  13. Conclusions • For Computational Design Creativity systems that design products I thinkthis is possible. • For Computational Artistic Creativity systems I have very grave doubts. 8 July 2009

More Related