Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
•
of the realisation of a work as a non-linear process;
•
of our cognitive preconditions—our ability to structurally interpret material, to
create variation, to see connections between different parts of the space of the
possible, and to find or design tools that take us there;
•
of re-conceptualisation as an essential part of the iterated process of realising a
work;
•
of personal style as characteristics of the personal topologies in material space.
In this chapter, I have mostly discussed how we go about realising the artistic arte-
fact and give it form in a particular framework or context. The model does not cover
what
we
want to express, depict or give form to as artists, or the value of the out-
come, which is included in some definitions of creativity. According to this view,
the result not only has to be new or novel, but valued by the community where it
appears—or else it is not judged as creative. If we speak about value as in good
art vs. bad art, then value is not intrinsic in the work, but relative to the observer.
It lies in the consistency of ideas, depth and detail of implementation; in the rel-
evance to the observer of the ideas conveyed. As long as it can provide an ade-
quately complex reflective surface for the observer, to enable her to make her own
re-conceptualisation and arrive at something which resonates with her thoughts, it
can be good art. I think this kind of value and meaning in a computer-generated
artwork may emerge from a faithfully implemented creative process.
Based on thorough observation of my own creative processes, and experience
from artistic teaching, from development of creative tools, and from my research
into applications of creative algorithms, I am quite convinced that the proposed
model could provide the basis for such implementations, providing a deeper un-
derstanding of artistic creative processes: in humans and in machines.
Acknowledgements
A major part of the research behind this chapter was funded by a research
grant from the Swedish Research Council, for the project “Potential Music”.
References
Barron, F. (1972).
Artists in the making
. New York: Seminar Press.
Barron, F. (Ed.) (1997).
Creators on creating
. Tarcher.
Boden, M. (2004).
The creative mind: myths and mechanisms
(2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Buchanan, B. G. (2001). Creativity at the meta-level: AAAI 2000 presidential address.
AI Maga-
zine Volume
,
22
(3), 13-28.
Cope, D. (2005).
Computer models of musical creativity
. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dahlstedt, P. (2001). A MutaSynth in parameter space: interactive composition through evolution.
Organised Sound
,
6
(2), 121-124.
Dahlstedt, P. (2004).
Sounds unheard of: evolutionary algorithms as creative tools for the contem-
porary composer
. PhD thesis, Chalmers University of Technology.
Dahlstedt, P. (2005).
Defining spaces of potential art: the significance of representation in
computer-aided creativity
. Paper presented at the description & creativity conference, King's
College, Cambridge, UK, 3-5 July 2005
Dahlstedt, P. (2007) Evolution in creative sound design. In E. R. Miranda & J. A. Biles (Eds.),
Evolutionary computer music
(pp. 79-99). London: Springer.
