Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
II
Could Computer Art Ever Be Properly Valued?
i When is the computer considered to have had “too much” involvement in the
process of making art? To what extent is the produced artefact then devalued
as a potential work of art because of the amount of automation? Is it right to
challenge this perception, and, if so, how can it be challenged?
ii What are the implications of being clearer and bolder about just how much
computing is impacting on any creative output?
iii In relation to the previous question, are there ways of revealing the process
of computation that would provide an alternative or additional aesthetic to
the completed artefact or of the developing partnership between computers
and artists in producing their art?
iv Does it even make sense to ask if the same value system that humans use
to experience art can be applied to art made by a computer? If not, then is
there another value system that we can use to interact more richly and less
dismissively with computer generated artefacts?
v What creative authorship can we attribute to a work that is assembled from
existing code that has been written by others (who may be anonymous)?
There is clearly creativity in a remix or mash up (where different musical
fragments are bought together for a specific project), even though we know
the person doing the remix was not the original composer of each musical
phrase or fragment. With software things are different because the code is
generally hidden and is not so distinctively familiar as it is with music, for
example. This creates a new and challenging perspective about the ambiguity
of authorship in art that is partially or completely produced by software.
III
What Can Computing Tell Us About Creativity?
i Is autonomous creative thinking beyond the capacity of any machine that we
can make now or in the future?
ii Does creativity necessarily involve the creation of useful or appropriate nov-
elty? Relatedly, how relevant is “value” to the definition of creativity? And
what kind of value matters most?
iii Broadly, the humanist view values what humans produce above what all
other things produce. Does the ability of software to produce unusual and
potentially non-human work mean that it can ever be given equal or even
greater value? Could we potentially benefit in some way by challenging our
value system and rethinking how things have value (and not just to us)?
iv What is the most practical approach to building creative systems? Should we
aim to mimic our own creative behaviour, the behaviours we find in nature, or
design completely new mechanisms? How can concepts of “emergence” be
usefully exploited in designing creative machines? Is it enough for a machine
to produce new combinations of existing primitives or does it have to create
completely new primitives to be a truly creative system?
v If we could ever define an algorithm that described in detail everything we
do as artists, then do we necessarily become limited as artists within that
description?
