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.
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.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 purpose of this algorithm is to accurately assess the level of creativity in art, similar to how an expert in the field would judge it.
The algorithm uses a combination of machine learning and data analysis to assess various elements of the artwork, such as composition, color usage, and originality, to determine its level of creativity.
Like any algorithm, it is possible for bias to exist in the data used to train it. However, steps can be taken to minimize bias and ensure a more objective assessment of creativity.
The accuracy of the algorithm will depend on the quality and quantity of the data used to train it. With proper training and testing, it can achieve a high level of accuracy in judging creativity.
No, the algorithm is not meant to replace human judgment, but rather to assist in the assessment of creativity in art. Human expertise and subjective interpretation are still valuable in evaluating art.