Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Finally, it's worth noting that
aesthetic evaluation
and the
evaluation of creativ-
ity
are somewhat related but quite distinct. For example, accomplishments in non-
artistic fields such as science and mathematics can also be evaluated as to their
degree of creativity. And in the arts it's possible to have an artwork of high aesthetic
value but without much creativity, or a highly creative artwork where the aesthetics
are poor or even irrelevant.
10.1.2 Why Is Computational Aesthetic Evaluation so Difficult
if not Impossible?
It should be noted at the outset that computational aesthetic evaluation is an ex-
tremely difficult problem. In the abstract, notions of computational aesthetic evalu-
ation and computational creativity lead to deep philosophical waters regarding phe-
nomenology and consciousness. Let's assume a computational evaluation system is
created that appears to duplicate human aesthetic judgement. Would such a machine
actually experience a sense of redness, brightness or other qualia? How would we
know? Can machine evaluation be successful without such experience? If such a ma-
chine isn't conscious does that mean human aesthetic judgement and computational
aesthetic evaluation are quite different? Or could it be that they aren't so different
after all because the brain is itself a machine? All of these interesting questions are
outside of the scope of this chapter.
Some feel that effective practical computational evaluation will remain out of
reach in our lifetime and perhaps forever. The complications begin with the likely
fact that the human aesthetic response is formed by a combination of genetic predis-
position, cultural assimilation, and unique individual experience. Despite a growing
research literature, the psychology of aesthetics is a mostly incomplete science, and
our understanding of each component is limited.
Even if we had a full understanding of aesthetics' genetic, cultural, developmen-
tal, and psychological modalities, the creation of comparable computational func-
tionality would remain a daunting task. It would probably require the resolution of a
number of standing hard problems in artificial intelligence. A model of human aes-
thetics, or human intelligence in general, has to represent more than a hypothetical
brain-in-a-jar. Our aesthetic sense and psychological makeup are in part the result
of embodied experience situated in a specific environment. Machine evaluation will
have to account for perception not as a passive mental process, but rather as a dy-
namic interaction between our bodies and the world (Davis and Rebelo
2007
,Mc-
Cormack
2008
). Additionally, it will have to allow for emotions and the irrational
Dionysian element in the arts.
10.2 A Brief History of Computational Aesthetic Evaluation
Any suggested computational aesthetic evaluation mechanism is going to contain, at
least implicitly, a theory of aesthetics. Most theories from the history of aesthetics do
