This algorithm can judge “creativity” in art like an expert

Click For Summary
The discussion centers around an algorithm designed to evaluate creativity in art, based on the premise that the most creative works break from past styles and inspire future artists. The experiment analyzed over 62,000 paintings without providing the algorithm with any historical context. Critics question the validity of the results, suggesting that the algorithm merely reflects existing perceptions of creativity rather than offering new insights. The ability to automate art evaluation is acknowledged as significant, with potential applications for companies interested in art analysis. However, concerns remain about the algorithm's reliance on established trends and the interpretation of its findings.
Physics news on Phys.org
"They worked from the premise that the most creative art was that which broke most from the past, and then inspired the greatest visual shifts in the works that followed."

"Their experiment—which involved two datasets totalling more than 62,000 paintings—was entirely automated. They gave the computer no information about art history."

I don't get it. They used a pretty reasonable definition of what makes creative art, then made a program to recognize it (but that at the same time couldn't possibly do so), and then when they go the results they wanted they thought it meant something? I'm going to assume that this is just bad science writing and their paper is actually interesting.
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
Tobias Funke said:
"They worked from the premise that the most creative art was that which broke most from the past, and then inspired the greatest visual shifts in the works that followed."

"Their experiment—which involved two datasets totalling more than 62,000 paintings—was entirely automated. They gave the computer no information about art history."

I don't get it. They used a pretty reasonable definition of what makes creative art, then made a program to recognize it (but that at the same time couldn't possibly do so), and then when they go the results they wanted they thought it meant something? I'm going to assume that this is just bad science writing and their paper is actually interesting.

That part doesn't make sense indeed, and it's in the original paper too, but what I found interesting is that they could code an algorithm to evaluate art, which is pretty important and I'm sure many companies will find this information valuable.
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
Perhaps with any sufficiently large data set that spans the periods, the algorithm can determine temporal relatedness by spatiochromatic relatedness.
 
Tosh5457 said:
...what I found interesting is that they could code an algorithm to evaluate art, which is pretty important and I'm sure many companies will find this information valuable.
The program determines that art which 1.) breaks with the past, and 2.) inspires imitators. It seems to me that the imitators are determining what should be valued as creative and the program simply tallies the result of this 'poll'. It's interesting you can get a computer to do it, but the results would already be known to people.
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2K ·
70
Replies
2K
Views
156K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 125 ·
5
Replies
125
Views
15K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K