Convergence of art and technology observations III
Is Computational Creativity making consumable art?
Computational Creativity is the conceptualization, experimentation, and application of innovative ideas using artificial Intelligence and algorithms, in art, literature, music, architecture, engineering, and other fields that require human creative thought. I’ve been exploring CC’s as a sub-topic in ongoing essays and writings reflecting the convergence of art and technology and what blurred lines the future may hold in store. Notice: this will not open the pandora’s box nor touch on the role of creativity in the engineering of social media and marketing technologies. This goes beyond it, and around it, both exclusively and inclusively.
Human creativity is often a channeling, and calculated process. Human computation is combination of unconscious and conscious processing and problem solving. Epistemology is the study of the very nature of human knowledge, but there is not much defined outside of the the fields of neurosciences in the lines of the study of human creativity. Much like the brain itself, it’s a broad study. In the art world (and tech world), computational creativity is gaining attention as both a medium and replacement for the artist.
So, will computational creativity replace or supplement human creativity? In an arena of innovation and science I think it could solve a lot of problems. After all, isn’t that the purpose of innovation? ..to render a new result or product derived from truth by way of connecting the dots? But artistic creativity is very different and serves a completely different purpose. Without getting into a discussion about the purpose of art I will simply (mis)quote an old proverb: If you have nothing left but two pennies, buy a loaf of bread with one penny and a flower with the last penny. I don’t think that warrants an explanation, but suffice to say humans need beauty and food to thrive and although beauty can scientifically be quantified, only the human spirit can make the experience, well, human. Clearly there are many forms of creativity, but the whole notion of computer models mimicking creativity beckons a redefining of creativity, its purpose, applications, and very definition as we know it. In the art world, human creativity is a clever expression of the human condition to put it simply. How can a computer even relate, let alone reproduce it? It can’t. It can only mimic through human instruction. Humans write and administer code. But is it truly impossible to program the human condition into something not human. Many ideologies follow this logic. However, scientist argue that humans never really “create” anything as we reconstruct the world around us through patterns and familiar items from our memories and subconsious. I’ve read, even our dreams are reconstructed places and events from all we’ve seen or experienced.
Artistically speaking, how exactly would and is CC emulating the human experience?
As of right now, artists are using computational creativity as a tool to create art. Essentially, deep learning models and algorithms called Generative Adversarial Networks or GANs, and Convolutional Neural Networks or CNNs are battling out options and competing for results. You can get the details and read further criticism here. However, the very nature of this technology is still derivative and is not really emulating creativity, more than it’s code seems to be arguing over chance. Although artist themselves are the admins of this technology thus far, it’s still the computer doing much of the work and decision making. Much like a work of art by Jeff Koons. Although Koons makes all decisions, an army of craftsman and artists carryout the fabrications. Perhaps a better example is artist Pindar Van Arman, who is doing just this. His art-making robotic arm even knows when to just stop painting, suggesting computational creativity is a risk taking and conceptual process, at least according to a study by David Galeson, a professor at the University of Chicago who researches creativity. David insinuates there are 2 different creative camps of innovation. “Risk taking” conceptualist, and “never done” experimentalists. He postulates that the experimenter never reaches his goal. Feverishly working at a masterpiece that is never done. Conversely, algorithms (and code) have an objective or goal in order to be carried out. This bring us back to the process. Modern art was defined by the result being the process. In other words, when you are looking at various works of modern abstract art, you are supposed to see the process as the result. Can we program a computer to carry out a process that has no objective nor end instruction? Perhaps that would be a piece in itself.
I feel like my thoughts are sort of all over the place in this piece. However, it’s reflective of my thoughts and feelings on this topic: all over the place.
A final thought, IF human souls are the ghost in our machines and the machines we create, what role will or would it ever play when the robots take over? Will we creatively fight and win a battle of “terminator” proportions? Or will it play out more like a Space Odyssey? Does humanity live on in the future as a glitch in the code to a world of artificial reality with AI at the helm striving to reach and counter the Universe’s architect of Entropy? Elon Musk’s thoughts would be certainly more interesting than mine on this digressive rant. I would love to hear further ideas in the comments.